sec 

#11,285 


EEFORMED, 


:^TOT     RITUALISTIC 


APOSTOLIC,  NOT  PATRISTIC. 


A   REPLY 


Dr.  nea^n's  "vindication,"  &o. 


BY 


J.  H.  A.  BOMBERGER,  D.D 


PHILADELPHIA: 

JAS.  B.  RODGERS,  PRINTER,  52  &  54  NORTU   SIXTH   STREET. 

18G7. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Rev.  J.  H.  A.  BoNrBERCER,  D.D. 

Dear  Brothkr: — As  your  tract,  entitled  "The  Revised  Liturgy:  A  History  and  Cri- 
ticism of  the  Ritualistic  movement  in  the  Reformed  Church,"  has  been  violently  assailed 
in  a  reply  by  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Nevin,  D.D.,  entitled  "Vindication  of  the  Revised  Liturgy," 
in  which  the  author  not  only  indulges  in  gross  personal  abuse  of  yourself  and  many  of 
your  brethren,  but  makes  statements  which  we  believe  to  be  utterly  groundless;  advocates 
views  which  are  believed  to  be  at  variance  with  historical  facts,  the  doctrinal  standard  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church  and  the  Holy  Scriptures,  most  earnestly  labors  to  introduce 
a  Liturgy  which  is  not  German  Reformed  ;  and  to  the  introduction  of  which  into  our  Church 
we  most  decidedly  object :  the  undersigned  Elders  of  said  Church  would  respectfully  request 
you  to  furnish  for  publication  such  a  defence  of  your  former  tract  as  you  may  deem  proper 
to  write,  and  especially  such  an  exhibition  of  the  Liturgical  principles  and  of  the  doetrijies 
of  our  Church  upon  the  points  involved,  as  may  serve  to  fortify  us  and  the  members  of  the 
Church  generally,  against  what  are  regarded  as  dangerous  errors. 

Permit  us  to  request,  however,  that  whatever  plainness  of  speech  and  pointedness  of 
proof  you  may  think  proper  to  employ,  you  will  not  allow  yourself  to  be  tempted  by  the 
unfortunate  style  used  by  the  author  of  the  "  Vindication  "  to  imitate  his  example  in  this 
respect.  It  is  with  pain  and  sorrow  that  we  refer  to  the  uncalled  for  unkindness  and  bit- 
terness manifested  by  Rev.  Dr.  Nevin. 

We  trust,  therefore,  that  you  will  not  write  one  word  in  your  defence,  that  you  would 
wish  had  been  omitted  when  you  close  your  career  here  below,  and  that  will  not  aid  in 
maintaining  the  truth  as  taught  by  the  fathers  of  our  Church,  and  advance  the  cause  of 
our  Redeemer's  kingdom.  With  kind  regards, 

Very  truly  yours, 

John  Wiest,  Abraham  Kline, 

W.  E.  ScHMKRTz,  Dr.  Thos.  Ingram, 

Geo.  Besore,  C    C.  Reepheim, 

R.  F.  Kelker,  W.  H.  Schall, 

Col.  Daniel  Follmer,  .                    CiiAS.  Wanxemacher, 

Charles  Newhard,  Abraham  Bausmann, 

W.  H.  Frymire,  Abraham  Peters, 

Levi  Balliet,  J.  L.  IIoffmeier, 

Peter  Shepper,  Sam'l  Yost, 

Jacob  M.  Foli.mer,  Christian  Gast, 

Jacob  Yeisly,  Jos.  K.  Milnor, 

David  M'Williams. 


To  the  Elders  George  Besore,  Wm.  E.  Schmertz, 
John  Wiest  and  others  : 


Philadelphia,  Ma>/  9,  186: 


Mr  Deak  Brethren: — In  the  following  pages  you  will  find,  it  is  hoped,  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  your  request ; 

But  why  have  you  asked  for  a  continuance  of  this  controversy?  And  why  should  I 
comply  with  your  request  ?  A  tract  abounding  in  such  bitter  personal  abuse,  indulging 
in  a  tone  so  insultingly  imperious,  assuming  airs  so  lofty  and  dictatorial,  and  yet  relying, 
in  its  sense  of  real  weakness,  upon  fierce  denials  for  rebutting  proofs,  and  upon  bold 
dogmatic  assertions  and  evasive  sophistries  for  facts  and  honest  arguments,  might  seem 
beneath  criticism  and  wholly  unworthy  of  notice.  No  mere  personal  consideration,  cer- 
tainly, could  have  induced  me  to  give  it  any  attention.  And  you  are  perfectly  right,  breth- 
ren, in  deprecating  the  thought  that  the  style  and  logic  of  Dr.  Nevin's  "  last  words,"  should 
be  retaliated  either  in  manner  or  in  kind.  At  the  same  time  I  accede  to  your  opinion, 
that  the  unhappy  tract  referred  to  demands  some  replj'.  Dr.  Nevin  has  been  long  regarded 
as  an  almost  unerring  oracle  in  our  Church.     We  have  been  accustomed  to  pay  well-nigh 


IV  CORRESPONDENCE. 

unquestioning  deference  to  his  opinions.  It  is  one  of  our  ecclesiastical  virtues  to  cherish 
and  manifest  scntiiflents  of  profound  respect  for  those  who  occupy  posts  of  responsibility, 
or  who  may  seem  to  be  endowed  with  superior  gifts.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  how  all  this 
may  be  perverted  and  abused.  The  oracle  may  err.  Opinions  once  received  as  the  syno- 
nyms of  truth,  may  involve  the  very  quintessence  of  false  doctrine.  Reverence  for 
dignitaries  may  degenerate  into  blind  servility,  and  become  a  snare.  More  than  one  illus- 
tration in  point  is  furnished  by  ecclesiastical  history. 

And  yet  a  generous  and  confiding  people  will  commonly  be  slow  to  believe  that  their 
very  confidence  is  placing  in  jeopardy  their  dearest  and  holiest  interests.  This  is  espe- 
cially apt  to  be  the  case  when  those  by  whose  influence  and  measures  the  peril  is  occasioned, 
seem  to  be  sincere,  when,  indeed,  no  one  may  dispute  that  they  are  acting  in  full  accord- 
ance with  deep  convictions.  The  teachers  whose  lessons  we  have  been  long  accustomed 
to  receive  with  meek  docility,  must  go  very  far  and  openly  astray,  before  we  can  consent 
to  doubt  their  doctrines,  or  even  to  scrutinize  their  theories  and  schemes.  To  abandon 
or  condemn  those  who  have  for  many  years  been  trustingly  followed  as  safe  and  certain 
guides,  involves  humiliation  and  exposes  to  reproach.  We  naturally  shrink  not  only 
from  such  humiliation,  but  from  a  course  which  impliedly  condemns  those  guides. 

All  this  gives  to  errors  and  subversive  measures  a  dangerous  power.  While  hesitating 
to  believe  them  such,  they  secure  overwhelming  ascendancy,  accomplish  their  schemes, 
and  involve  the  Church  in  ruin.  Hence  the  necessity  for  a  prompt  and  decided  exposure 
of  what  are  believed  to  be  pernicious  errors  and  menacing  evils.  Hence  also  the  full 
justification  of  such  exposures.  That  this  does  not  imply  what  Dr.  Nevin  has  labored  so 
unjustly  to  make  out,  an  accusation  of  conspiracy,  has,  I  think,  been  fully  shown  on  pp. 
16-24  of  the  present  tract.  But  Dr.  Nevin's  attempt  to  distort  this  point,  must  not  be 
allowed  to  conceal  what  it  does  involve.  And  when  we  are  plainly  told  that  the  ])urpose 
of  the  ritualistic  movement  is  to  revolutionize  our  Church,  it  is  time  to  be  aroused  to  a 
sense  of  the  great  peril  which  threatens  us.  To  sound  the  alarm  in  such  an  emergency 
is  not  to  be  troublers  in  Israel.  They  are  the  troublers  who  seek  to  subvert  Israel's  faith 
and  worship,  and  to  lead  both  into  bondage.  To  point  out  the  evils  of  such  a  scheme 
may  provoke  angry  maledictions.  But  what  is  there  in  the  malediction  thundered  from 
a  source  like  this  to  frighten  loyal  hearts  from  the  discharge  of  a  solemn  duty. 

None  could  find  less  pleasure  in  controversy,  than  those  who  have  felt  constrained  to 
oppose  the  extreme  turn  taken  by  the  present  ritualistic  movement.  None  could  more 
earnestly  desire  than  they,  that  there  had  been  no  occasion  for  such  opposition.  But 
their  Church,  in  her  true  historical  character,  is  more  to  them  than  the  peculiar  theology 
or  ritualistic  scheme  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  those  who  embrace  and  advocate  his  views.  And 
the  movement  has  been  forced  to  a  point  at  which  the  choice  lay  between  firm  opjiosition 
to  its  furiher  progress,  or  the  abandonment  of  the  Church  to  the  subversive  tendency  of 
the  ritualistic  "  new  measures." 

If  any  ask  why  this  resistance  was  not  made  long  ago,  I  reply:  1.  That  it  is  not  long 
since  the  Liturgical  movement  has  assumed  openly  the  extreme  ritualistic  character  which 
it  now  avows.  2.  That  we  were  too  slow  to  believe  that  so  radical  a  revolution  in  our 
cultus  would  ever  be  seriously  attempted  or  pressed;  and  3.  That  it  seemed  proper  to  wait 
for  the  full  develoj^ment  of  the  scheme,  as  now  made  in  the  Revised  Liturgy.  But 
although  for  these  reasons,  the  force  of  which  all  generous  minds  will  appreciate,  the 
opposition  has  been  delayed  so  long,  whj'  should  it  be  too  late  to  arrest  the  further 
progress,  or  defeat  the  purposes  pf  this  extreme  ritualistic  movement?  Only  let  the  Church 
realize  what  the  points  at  issue  are,  and  duly  consider  them.  Our  greatest  danger  lies  in 
a  prevailing  reluctance  to  believe  that  Dr.  Nevin  and  those  who  favor  his  scheme,  really 
mean  what  they  avow.  If  the  Church  can  once  be  persuaded  that  the  new  "  Order  of 
Worship  "  means  a  fundamental  and  radical  revolution  mainly  of  our  Church  ])ractice, 
and  incidentally  of  some  essential  articles  of  our  faith,  her  decision  will  not  be  doubtful. 
I  do  not  believe,  notwithstanding  all  the  influence  with  which  this  movement  is  pressed, 
that  one  member  in  twenty  of  our  Church,  would  vote  for  the  adoption  of  this  new  system 
of  worship,  knowing  what  such  adoption  would  involve. 

In  the  following  reply  to  Dr.  Nevin's  "Vindication,"  it  has  been  my  desire  and  endea 
vor  to  shun  the  bad  example  of  his  tract,  in  regard  to  spirit  and  style.  And  yet  as  I  wa 
brought  so  closely  in  contact  with  it,  my  pen  may  occasionally  have  caught  the  contagior 

Of  course  I  did  not  limit  myself  for  proof's  to  the  "Vindication."  The  discussion  fair 
involves  all  that  has  been  written  or  said  on  that  side,  by  responsible  parties.  Especial 
does  the  tract  of  1862,  "  The  Liturgical  Question,"  belong  here.  Indeed  it  is  the  prof 
key  to  the  true  design  of  the  ritualistic  scheme;  and  no  one  can  rightly  estimate  the  p 
sent  posture  of  the  case,  without  studying  that  memorable  tract. 

Committing  the  whole  matter  to  llira  who  is  the  Head  of  the  Church  Militant  as  ^ 
as  the  Church  Triumphant,  in  the  full  confidence  that  He  will  deliver  our  Zion  from 
its  present  dangers,  I  remain  sincerely 

Your  Brother, 

J.  H.  A.BOMBERGE^ 


PRELIMINARIES. 


One  of  the  most  painful  positions  in  wbich  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to 
be  placed,  is  to  find  himself  arrayed  in  open  and  decided  antagonism 
against  those  in  whose  fellowship  he  once  found  sincere  pleasure,  and  with 
whose  real  or  supposed  views  he  once  thought  himself  in  happy  agreement. 
To  difter  positively  from  intimate  friends,  or  from  those  for  whom  senti- 
ments of  fraternal  regard  may  be  cherished,  even  on  matters  of  lesser  im- 
portance, is  undesirable.  But  when  the  points  of  diversity  affect,  or  are 
honestly  believed  to  affect,  the  substance  and  the  form  of  evangelical  faith 
and  practice,  as  avowed  and  maintained  by  the  Church  to  which  the  par- 
ties owe  spiritual  fealty,  the  duties  imposed  by  such  antagonism  become, 
most  literally,  a  cross.  It  must  be  a  cold  heart  which  can  bend  to  that 
cross,  without  reluctance.  It  must  be  an  easy,  indifferent  friendship,  which 
can  render  unhesitating,  eager  compliance  with  the  demands  of  those 
duties. 

And  yet,  in  such  exigencies,  the  clear  dictates  of  duty  must  prevail 
over  all  mere  personal  considerations.  If  professed  reverence  and  regard 
for  long  established  Church  doctrines  and  customs,  founded  upon  Apos- 
tolic authority  and  primitive  practice,  have  not  prevented  an  attempt, 
"materially  and  essentially,"  to  change  those  customs  and  doctrines,  why 
should  sentiments  of  inferior  value  deter  us  from  earnestly  resisting  such 
an  attempt?  Opposition  to  innovating  schemes,  subversive  of  the  histo- 
rical life  and  traditional  character  of  the  Church,  may  indeed,  expose 
those  w4io  make  it,  to  bitter  denunciation.  By  impugning  their  motives, 
by  vituperative  misrepresentations  of  their  views  and  aims,  the  entire  en- 
ginery of  party  power  and  partizan  animosity  may  be  turned  upon  them, 
if  possible  to  crush  them,  and  with  them  the  opposition  made  to  the  bold 
new  measures.  The  very  influence  with  which  they  have  helped  to  invest 
some  of  the  advocates  of  those  measures,  may  be  used  to  injure  them. 
Nevertheless,  the  established  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church  should  be 
defended,  no  matter  by  whom  assailed,  or  to  what  denunciations  those 
who  engage  in  the  defence  may  be  exposed.  And.  this  defence,  whilst 
it  should  be  made  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  de- 


b  PRELIMINARIES. 

cency  and  of  cliarity,  should  be  also  unequivocal  and  decided.  Error  is 
naturally  artful  and  insidious.  In  its  first  approaches,  it  may  wear  a  harm- 
less aspect,  and  seem  wholly  inoifensive.  Its  advocates  may  not  be  arrogant, 
presumptuous,  or  dictatorial.  Gentle  of  speech,  unassuming,  meek,  they 
may  timidly  ask  only  for  a  hearing,  for  toleration,  for  the  opportunity  of  a 
harmless  experiment,  under  a  pledge  or  promise  at  once  to  desist,  if  ob- 
jection should  be  made  to  their  further  advancement.  But  no  sooner 
have  they  thus  gained  a  foothold,  and  acquired  some  strength  under  the* 
fostering  influence  of  such  unsuspicious  toleration,  than  they  make  bold  to 
speak  in  quite  a  diiferent  tone,  confidently  assume  a  more  commanding 
posture,  and,  instead  of  asking  for  favors^  dictate  their  dogmas  and  mea- 
sures in  terms  of  lordly  authority.  Now,  they  defiantly  challenge  contra- 
diction; and  if  any  attempt  is  made,  in  the  interest  of  the  old  faith,  or 
through  honest  zeal  for  the  maintenance  of  ecclesiastical  integrity,  to  re- 
sist and  arrest  their  progress,  they  strive  not  only  to  defeat  the  attempt, 
but  to  overwhelm  all  who  make  it  with  a  torrent  of  ridicule  and  defama- 
tion. No  scene  exactly  like  that  at  Ephesus,  in  St.  Paul's  day,  or  at  the 
same  Ephesus,  in  A.  D.  449,  may  be  re-enacted  in  form.  But  the  same 
furious  and  bitter  spirit  betrays  itself;  a  spirit  of  angry  determination  to 
carry  by  violence,  what  might  not  be  won  by  more  decorous  means. 

Shall  error  and  revolutionary  innovations,  grown  into  such  magnitude, 
and  arrogating  such  defiant  manners,  be  therefore  allowed  to  have  their 
way?  Shall  the  hallowed  heritage  of  centuries  be  timidly  abandoned  to 
the  inroads  of  bold  adventurousness  and  wild  presumptuous  speculations, 
because  they  may  carry  the  Creed  as  their  standard,  and  shout,  as  their 
battle-cry :  The  Church,  the  Church !  By  no  means.  Come  what  may, 
they  must  be  opposed  and  withstood,  if  the  hallowed  faith  and  traditions 
of  our  fathers  shall  not  be  forfeited  and  lost.  Those  fathers  were  the 
honored  instruments  in  the  hands  of  God,  in  jjroducing  or  perfecting  that 
"Reformation  which  was  the  resia-rection  of  the  Truth,  once  more,  in  its 
genuine,  original  life."  (See  Dr.  Nevin's  "Anxious  Bench,"  2d  ed..  p. 
51.)  Their  Creed,  their  Cultus,  founded  upon  that  revived  Truth,  and 
framed  in  accordance  with  the  simplicity  of  Apostolic  and  Primitive 
usage,  are  the  most  precious  legacies  bequeathed  to  us  by  the  consecrated 
past.  The  Church  of  the  present  holds  them  as  a  solemn  trust.  They 
are  talents  which  are  not,  indeed,  to  be  buried  in  the  ground,  and  left 
unimproved,  but  talents  which  are  to  be  improved  according  to  their  kind, 
and  not  to  be  tampered  with  as  a  medium  of  mercenary  trafiic  in  all  sorts 
of  theological  and  ecclesiastical  commodities,  and  to  be  bartered  back 
again  for  the  conceits  and  measures  of  that  false  "philosophy  by  which 
the  Church  of  Rome,  from  the  fourth  century  doimiward,  was  actuated  in 
all  her  innovations."     (See  "Anxioxis  Bench,"  2d  ed.,  p.  53.) 


PRELIMINARIES.  7 

To  the  past,  as  well  as  to  the  future,  therefore,  the  Church  of  the 
present  is  under  solemn  obligations  to  preserve  her  inherited  faith  and 
practice  inviolate,  and  to  defend  it,  with  firm,  undaunted  courage  against 
all  '^material  improvements,"  however  plausible,  and  against  all  "inno- 
vation upon  her  old  system,"  however  specious.  Indeed,  this  obligation 
is  formally  confessed  in  the  Constitution  of  our  Church.  Her  Professors  of 
theology  are  not  left  at  liberty  to  invent  doctrinal  and  liturgical  systems  of 
.their  own,  and  then  to  use  the  influence  of  their  position  in  endeavoring 
to  secure  the  adoption  those  systems.  They  are  required  to  affirm 
as  by  an  oath,  and  in  the  presence  of  God,  that  they  believe  "the 
doctrine  contained  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures"  (evert  including  the  44th,  47th,  48th,  49th,  54th,  56th 
and  80th  questions),  that  they  will  make  it  "the  basis  of  all  their  instruc- 
tions, and  faithfully  maintain  and  defend  the  same,  in  their  preaching  and 
writing,  as  well  as  in  their  instructions."  (See  Constit.,  Art.  19.)  All 
her  ministers  are  bound  by  a  similar  pledge  (Art.  4.)  This,  then,  is  a 
statute  imposed  alike  upon  all.  There  is  no  exemption.  The  Church 
avows  her  debt  of  fealty  to  the  past,  by  laying  those  entrusted  with  the 
official  custody  of  her  spiritual  treasures,  under  the  most  solemn  oath  of 
fidelity  to  the  trust.  They  must  swear,  not  merely  that  they  will  not 
themselves  exchange  these  treasures  for  any  which  may  seem  more  valua- 
ble, but  that  they  will,  zealously  defend  them  against  every  attempt 
which  others  may  make  to  purloin  them.  Though  they  may  sometimes 
deceive  themselves,  or  be  deceived,  by  the  specious  pleas  and  forms  under 
which  such  attempts  may  be  commenced,  and  let  themselves  be  deluded 
into  the  belief  that  they  contemplate  nothing  more  than  the  burnishing  of 
what,  in  time,  had  become  dim,  or  repairing  what  may  have  been  marred 
or  broken ;  yet,  when  they  find  reason  to  believe  that  the  effort  involves 
"materially"  more  than  such  mere  renovation,  and  contemplates  essential 
substitutions,  they  cannot  regard  the  process  with  indifference,  without 
violating  their  sacred  obligations. 

And  in  such  emergencies,  they  have  not  only  a  right,  but  it  is  their 
solemn  duty,  to  speak  and  to  claim  a  calm,  dispassionate  hearing.  Those 
who  may  seem  to  be  implicated  in  attempts  to  effect  such  "material 
changes''  in  the  established  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church,  or  who  may 
openly  advocate  views  which  involve  "  a  scheme  of  religious  belief  mate- 
rially at  variance  with  preconceived  opinions,"  may  take  offence  at  being 
even  impliedly  blamed  with  such  attempts.  They  may  raise  a  clamorous 
outcry  against  all  who  utter  a  word  of  warning,  or  charge  their  theory  and 
measures  with  tendencies  of  a  subversive  and  revolutionary  character. 
By  violent  vituperations,  by  representing  themselves  as  vilified  and  slan- 
dered, by  appealing  to  prejudices  and  inflaming  bitter  partizan  passions, 


8  PRELIMINARIES, 

they  may  endeavor  to  excite  a  very  hurricane  of  indignation  against  those 
whom  they  decry  as  false  accusers,  and  so  try  to  pervert  their  testimony 
and  to  drown  their  voice.  All  this  has  often  been  done  in  like  cases, 
and  may  be  constantly  repeated.  There  is  no  doubt,  also,  that  the  appre- 
hension of  such  a  storm  being  raised,  combines  frequently  with  considera- 
tions of  personal  regard,  in  long  deterring  many  who  may  see  reason  for 
alarm,  from  uttering  their  fears,  and  publicly  directing  attention  to  the 
threatening  peril.  But  when,  at  length,  they  feel  constrained  to  speak, 
and  do  so  in  plain  and  earnest,  but  decorous  and  moderate  terms,  should 
they  be  smitten  on  the  cheek,  or  rudely  cast  down  and  trampled  under 
foot  ?  May  it  not  rather  be  expected,  that  as  they  would  most  certainly 
not  have  spoken  at  all,  but  from  a  firm  persuasion  of  danger,  and  a  strong 
conviction  of  duty,  so  now,  that  they  have,  perhaps  after  too  long  delay, 
made  bold  to  express  their  anxieties  and  give  their  reasons  for  those 
anxieties,  they  will  at  least  be  calmly  and  fairly  heard? 

But  whether  heard,  or  discarded,  they  must  be  true  to  their  solemn 
oath.  The  dictates  of  duty  must  be  obeyed,  and  consequences  be  left 
with  Ilim  who  is  able  to  control  them.  Even  though  denounced  as  false 
witnesses,  if  their  testimony  of  warning  is  true,  time  will  vindicate  it. 
Conscious  of  integrity  of  purpose,  and  convinced  of  the  reality  of  the 
evils  they  expose,  they  can  aiFord  patiently  to  bide  their  time. 

It  was  with  such  sentiments,  and  after  a  struggle  which  continued 
through  the  several  months  immediately  preceding  the  Synod  of  York,  in 
October  last,  that  I  felt  myself  compelled  at  length  to  make  the  written 
statement  submitted  to  that  Synod,  adverse  to  the  results  reached  by  the 
other  members  of  the  Liturgical  Committee.  And  it  was  with  such  con- 
victions, that  I  subsequently  acceded  to  the  request  of  a  number  of 
Brethren,  to  prepare  and  publish  a  History  and  brief  Criticism  of  the 
Revised  Liturgy.  The  facts  of  the  history  were  gathered  fairly  and 
faithfully  from  official  documentary  sources.  Its  purpose  was  to  show  by 
official  evidence,  that  if  the  Provisional  Liturgy  was,  what  some  members 
of  the  Committee  declared  it  to  be,  a  unit,  and  as  such  a  true  Liturgy  in 
their  sense  of  the  term;  and  that  if  the  Revised  Liturgy,  or  "Order  of 
Worship"  reported  to  the  Synod,  was  in  true  essential  harmony  with  the 
Provisional  Liturgy,  that  then  both  were  not  in  accordance  with  instruc- 
tions given  from  time  to  time,  by  successive  Synods,  to  the  Committee, 
for  their  government  in  the  preparation  of  the  work.  This  point  will  be 
more  fully  examined  in  a  subsequent  section  of  the  present  tract.  For 
my  purpose  now,  it  is  sufficient  to  state  it.  After  giving,  in  my  former 
tract,  the  historical  proofs  of  this  position,  I  showed,  in  a  necessarily  brief 
criticism,  in  what  respects  the  Revised  Liturgy,  both  as  to  its  ritualistic 
and  doctrinal   peculiarities,   differed   "materially"  from    the  established 


PRELIMINARIES.  9 

worship  and  standard  doctrines  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  and, 
indeed,  was  "essentially"  contrary  to  them.  "Essential"  diversities  in 
regard  to  the  mode  of  worship,  were  admitted  to  be  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee; even  important  diversity  at  least  in  the  manner  of  presenting 
some  doctrines,  was  not  denied. 

It  was  delicate  ground  to  go  over.  There  were  items  in  the  history  of 
the  movement,  which  could  not  be  otherwise  than  most  offensive  to  any 
one  cherishing,  not  bigoted  and  prejudiced,  but  only  proper  and  natural 
affection,  for  our  ecclesiastical  traditions.  More  than  once  had  the  Com- 
mittee treated  with  disdain  the  cultus  handed  down  to  us  by  our  fathers. 
Not  merely  were  certain  extravagances  of  extemporaneous  prayer  ridi- 
culed, but  the  whole  system  was  stigmatized.  Without  reserve,  it  was 
affirmed  that  its  "natural  character  was  to  be  jejune,  confused,  prosy,  not 
sapid,  not  satisfying  nor  nourishing  for  the  soul.  *  *  *  Q^j^g  misery 
of  the  extemporaneous  system  is  *  *  that  it  proves  the  liberty  of  being 
weak,  and  of  doing  in  a  weak  way,  what  there  is  no  power  of  doing  in  a 
way  that  is  strong."  (Liturgy,  Question,  p.  21.)  This  wholesale  con- 
demnation, let  it  be  remembered,  was  passed  upon  the  mode  of  worship 
prevailingly  practiced  by  our  Church  for  at  least  two  centuries,  and  au- 
thorized even  from  the  first.  This,  moreover,  was  not  condemning  and 
stigmatizing  the  system  only,  but  all  who,  during  those  centuries,  had 
practiced  it.  To  Dr.  Nevin,  and  those  who  joined  him  in  endorsing  his 
sentiments  on  this  point,  it  may  seem  pleasant  pastime  to  indulge  in  such 
sarcastic  criticisms  upon  the  customs  of  those  who  cannot  answer  them  from 
the  silence  of  the  grave.  There  are  others,  however,  to  whom  such  sar- 
castic reproaches  are  insufferable.  This  is  not  all.  Such  "pulpit  hand- 
books" as  the  Old  Palatinate  Liturgy,  met  with  no  better  treatment  at 
the  hands  of  this  ritualistic  surgery.  They  are  set  down  as  "no  true 
liturgies;"  as  "a  sort  of  unbound-book  service;"  as  a  "mummery  of  ritual- 
istic forms;"  as  a  kind  of  worship  which  '■'ceases  to  he  distinctively  Chris- 
tian, and  becomes  necessarily  more  or  less  Gnostically  spiritualistic  only, 
ending  at  last,  indeed,  in  mere  humanitarian  deism."  (Liturgy.  Q.  pp. 
18—27,  28.) 

Let  the  above  quotations  suffice  as  a  few  specimens  of  the  indignity  put 
upon  the  labors  and  legacies  of  our  Church  when  this  "new  flood"  broke 
in  upon  her.  Let  them  suffice,  also,  to  show  how  much  occasion  was  thus 
given  for  severe  animadversion  upon  the  temper  evinced,  and  the  lan- 
guage employed  by  the  advocates  of  the  innovations  (the  difference  be- 
tween which  and  the  Old  Palatinate  order  of  worship,  is  affirmed  "to  he 
wider  altogether  than  their  common  difference  from  woisliip  in  the  free 
form,"     Liturgy.    Q.    p.  5.) 

But  with  all  the  provocation  thus  given,  it  was  my  steady  aim  and  ef- 


10  PRELIMINARIES. 

fort,  in  preparing  the  tract  published  last  November,  to  avoid  all  harsh- 
ness of  style,  all  ribald  epithets,  all  obnoxious  personalities.  As  a  his- 
tory, facts  had  to  be  taken  and  given,  as  they  were  furnished  by  the 
record;  they  could  not  be  altered  or  modified,  for  they  were  a  part  of  the 
unchangeable  past.  They  had  to  be  given,  also,  in  their  true  connection 
and  their  historical  import.  But  though  the  recital  of  them,  as  any  re- 
flecting mind  can  see,  furnished  frequent  and  tempting  occasion  for  the 
sharpest  criticisms  (Sartor  resartus),  scarcely  any  such  were  indulged  in, 
beyond  what  may  be  involved  in  obvious  and  necessary  inferences.  This 
characteristic  of  the  tract  has  been  appreciated,  also,  by  others.  And 
when  Dr.  Nevin  afiirms  (p.  5),  that  its  criticisms  '■^turn  for  the  most  jJort 
on  the  use  of  invidious  terms  of  reproach^  and  appeals  to  popular  preju- 
dice," he  says  what  he  does  not  attempt  to  prove,  what  he  cannot  prove, 
and  what  every  reader  of  that  tract  knows  to  be  unti-ue. 

And  yet  that  tract,  in  gross  violation  of  parliamentary  order,  was 
dragged  into  the  public  debate,  and  seized  upon  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Nevin 
(as  the  leader  of  the  ultra  ritualistic  party  in  the  German  Reformed 
Church,  at  the  General  Synod  in  Dayton,  and  made  the  occasion  of  a 
personal  attack  upon  me,  which  m.ay  be  mildly  characterized  as  vulgar 
i»nd  vituperative  to  an  extreme  degree.  And  to  prove  the  strength  and 
depth  of  the  malevolent  purpose  which  inspired  that  assault,  it  is  now  re- 
peated, with  a  large  addition  and  intensification  of  virulence,  in  hi^  recent 
pamphlet,  entitled  "Vindication,  &c." 

If  this  published  assault,  and  the  pretended  exhibition  and  defence  of 
the  peculiarities  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  were  issued  upon  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  author  alone,  and  depended  for  their  influence  and  effects 
upon  their  own  merits,  nothing,  assuredly,  would  be  hazarded  by  me  per- 
sonally, or  for  the  interest  of  the  true  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church,  in 
letting  it  drop,  unnoticed,  into  its  own  natural  element.  It  appears,  how- 
ever, in  a  form  which  seems  to  make  lay  Brethren  for  whom  I  cherish 
sincere  private  regard,  and  whom  I  hold  no  way  answerable  for  Dr. 
Nevin's  language  and  sentiments,  endorse  the  bitter  denunciations  of  his 
pamphlet,  and  so,  possibly,  secure  for  them  a  consideration  which  they 
could  not  otherwise  command.  Ardent  zeal,  also,  for  the  cause  so  un- 
worthily defended,  may  gather  warmly  around  this  "Vindication,"  and 
labor  to  secure  currency  for  it  by  concealing  or  extenuating  its  faults,  and 
by  lauding  its  sophistries  and  assumptions,  meant  for  arguments. 

It  is  thought  proper,  therefore,  that  the  "Vindication"  should  be  an- 
swered; that  its  true  character  should  be  exposed;  that  its  misrepresenta- 
tions of  facts  should  be  corrected;  and  that  the  superior  excellence  of  the 
liturgical  and  doctrinal  inheritance  of  the  Reformed  Church  should  be  ex- 
hibited in  contrast  with  the  ritualistic  "new  measures"  and  Christo-cea- 


GENERAL    CRITICISM.  11 

trie  conceits,  wliicli  are  now  striving  to  usurp  the  claims  and  place  of  that 
inheritance. 

With  these  preliminary  explanations,  therefore,  I  proceed  to  the 
task  of  replying,  so  far  as  it  may  deserve  an  answer,  to  Dr.  Nevin's  so- 
called  "Vindication  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,"  and  of  considering  the  im- 
portant questions  involved  in  this  controversy,  Historical,  Hitualisfic,  and 
Theological  : 

The  "Vindication"  ca]h,frst  of  all,  for  some 

GENERAL  CRITICISM. 

Wholly  apart  from  any  arguments,  or  assertions  meant  for  arguments, 
which  Dr.  Nevin's  tract  contains,  it  is  pervaded  by  a  spirit,  and  charac- 
terized by  a  style  of  rhetoric,  which  must  have  excited  feelings  of  pro- 
found regret  in  the  heart  of  every  impartial  reader.  On  every  page  of 
the  historical  section,  including  the  introduction,  the  writer  betrays  a 
passionate  determination  to  give  the  fullest  license  to  the  promptings  of 
ridicule,  sarcasm  and  invective.  And  to  show  the  depth  and  strength  of 
that  determination,  and  the  inexhaustible  violence  of  those  promptings  of 
embittered  passion,  the  fifty  pages  devoted  to  what  is  miscalled  "The 
Historical  Vindication,"  are  found  insufficient  to  contain  the  overflowing 
of  the  turbid  torrent.  They  mar  large  portions  even  of  that  "  Theological" 
Christo-centric  section,  which,  by  the  very  sacredness  and  solemnity  of  the 
subjects  treated,  should  have  forewarned  the  champion  to  leave  at  its 
threshhold  the  sandals  soiled  with  the  grime  and  gore  of  the  field  he  had 
just  so  furiously  traversed.  Language  is  employed  which  should  have  no 
currency  among  Christians.  Epithets  are  heaped  upon  the  objects  of  his 
anger,  which  should  find  no  place  in  a  noble-minded  theologian's  vocabu- 
lary. Contempt,  disdain,  ribald  contumely,  fierce  vituperation,  constitute 
the  staple  of  a  large  part  of  the  tract.  The  unhappy  author  appears  to 
have  set  out  with  the  fell  purpose  of  trying  to  do  his  worst;  and  surely 
his  success  is  not  more  manifest  than,  for  his  own  sake,  it  is  deplorable. 

All  this,  too,  without  any  real,  justifying  occasion.  Nothing  had  been 
said  or  done  by  those  who  so  materially  difi'er  in  their  views  from  Dr. 
Nevin  and  his  more  zealous  disciples  to  merit  or  to  provoke  such  treat- 
ment at  his  hands.  That  my  former  tract  did  not,  has  been  admitted 
by  more  than  one  unbiassed  reader.  And  how  little  occasion  for  any 
thing  of  the  sort  was  given  by  what  was  said  in  opposition  to  the  Revised 
Liturgy  innovations,  at  Dayton,  must  be  evident  even  from  the  imperfect 
sketches  published  in  our  Church  papers.  No  one  denies,  of  course,  that 
some  things,  both  in  my  tract  and  in  the  speeches  at  Synod,  might  be  dis- 
torted and  exaggerated  into  shapes  and  proportions  which  would  make 
them  hideous  and  abominable.     Nor  will  anv  one  familiar  with  some  of 


12  GENERAL   CRITICISM, 

the  phases  of  the  movement  now  agitating  our  Church,  question  the  fa- 
cility with  which  such  distortions  can  be  practiced,  whether  in  the  way  of 
ridicule  or  misrepresentation,  by  some  advocates  of  ultra  ritualism.  But 
those  to  whose  possible  disadvantage,  for  the  time,  this  may  be  done,  are 
not  responsible  for  perversions  of  their  words  or  acts.  And  candid,  in- 
telligent observers  of  what  is  said  and  done  on  both  sides,  will  not  be 
easily  deluded  or  misled  by  any  malpractice  of  this  kind.  The  world  is 
too  old,  and  the  discernment  of  good  common  sense  is  too  penetrating,  to 
allow  the  use  of  such  devices  to  escape  detection.  As  far  back  as  the 
days  of  Ahab,  the  artifice  of  putting  an  odious  construction  upon  the 
words  of  one  whom  it  was  designed  to  brand  with  infamy  and  blast  in 
reputation,  and  of  attributing  to  him  sentiments  never  uttered,  was  fa- 
miliar. Occasionally  it  has  been  successful  for  a  season.  Ultimately, 
however,  it  ftills  headlong  into  its  own  pit. 

A  writer  of  Dr.  Nevin's  experience,  would  of  course  not  use  this  method 
of  controversy  without  design.  The  vindictive  ebullitions  which  so  over- 
run the  pages  of  his  tract,  are  not  the  involuntary  outbursts  of  a  holy  in- 
dignation, at  a  real  or  imaginary  wrong  done  him  or  the  party  he  repre- 
sents. They  indeed  reveal  intense  excitement,  often  even  furious  ani- 
mosity. But  amidst  all  the  violence  of  the  storm,  the  rocking,  creaking 
vessel  of  his  anger  is,  as  by  a  strong,  unbending  will,  kept  steadily  on  one 
course.  Yv'hither?  Towards  a  desired  port  or  haven,  where  it  may  be 
safely  anchored,  and  find  rest?  By  no  means.  It  is  guided  by  quite  a 
different  purpose.  In  the  same  waters  in  which  it  is  tossed,  there  are 
other  vessels,  ^^  small,  contempiihle  croft"  which  dare  to  cross  the  track  of 
the  leviathan,  nay,  which  even  have  the  audacity  to  dispute  its  progress. 
And  now,  like  another  Atlanta,  he  turns  his  prow  upon  them,  as  if  de- 
termined to  run  them  down,  and  sink  them  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 
That  he  missed  his  aim,  or  failed  in  the  execution  of  his  strategy,  proves, 
not  the  absence  of  the  purpose,  but  only  its  fury  and  its  folly. 

It  must  be  a  cause  of  deep  regret  to  many  of  Dr.  Nevin's  more  conside- 
rate admirers,  even,  that  he  has  so  often  displayed  this  spirit  of  bitter, 
overbearing  intolerance  towards  those  who  may  differ  from  him,  or  become 
obnoxious  to  his  displeasure;  and  that  he  is  so  ready  to  indulge  in  low 
ridicule  and  disparaging  sarcasm,  even  when  dealing  with  things  in  them- 
selves sacred,  and  therefore  entitled  to  serious  consideration  and  at  least 
decorous  treatment,  though  they  may  not  be  quite  according  to  his  mind. 
This  spirit  and  manner  are  uuwortliy  of  a  Christian,  and  must  always 
damage  the  cause  they  profess  to  serve.  Without  convicting  those  against 
whom  they  are  directed  of  error  or  wrong  (for  ridicule  is  no  test  of  truth, 
and  although  sarcasm  may  wound,  it  can  never  heal),  they  offend  and  pain 
others  by  a  superfluity  of  irony  which  can  never  compensate  for  a  lack  of 


GENERAL    CRITICISM.  13 

logic.  Who  does  not  know  that  madly  to  tear  in  pieces  a  lawyer's  brief, 
does  not  destroy  his  argument?  And  yet,  both  at  Dayton  and  in  this 
"  Vindication,"  Dr.  Nevin  has  acted  recklessly  upon  the  contrary  hypothe- 
sis. Under  whatever  spell,  he  has  assumed  that  nothing  is  necessary  in 
dealing  with  those  who  differ  from  him,  and  oppose  his  "  new  measures," 
than  to  hold  them  up  to  be  laughed  or  hissed  at  by  those  who  may  be 
ready  to  respond  to  his  appeal.  Poor  Burns'  address  to  his  "Young 
Friend"  contains  a  stanza  which  might  have  taught  a  better  lesson.  All 
this  is  done,  moreover,  without  any  excuse.  Those  whom  he  allows  him- 
self so  unrestrainedly  to  asperse,  and  to  treat  with  such  supercilious  dis- 
dain, are  in  every  sense  his  peers.  He  possesses  no  qualities,  natural  or 
acquired,  which  entitle  him  to  the  imperious  manner  he  arrogates;  or 
give  him  a  right  to  speak  to  his  equals  as  though  they  were  his  serfs. 
And  notwithstanding  all  the  flattery  bestowed,  the  Church  has  never  con- 
ferred upon  him  prerogatives  beyond  those  enjoyed  by  all  her  ministers. 
From  the  prevailing  tone  and  style,  however,  of  his  speech  at  Dayton,  and 
still  more  of  this  latest  effusion  of  his  pen,  it  is  painfully  evident  that  he 
holds  very  different  views. 

For  myself,  I  may  be  allowed  to  say,  that  whilst  amazed  and  indignant 
at  the  perverse  exaggeration  and  misrepresentation  of  some  portions  of 
my  former  tract,  (of  which  more  anon)  Dr.  Nevin's  violent  and  abusive 
personal  assault  upon  me  has  filled  me  with  far  more  sorrow  and  shame 
for  the  assailant  than  with  concern  for  myself.  It  is  most  sad  and  humil- 
iating to  see  a  man  of  his  years,  position,  and  opportunities,  stoop  to 
means  so  unworthy,  and  to  words  so  low.  And  yet  what  else  might  have 
been  expected  from  the  author  of  the  "Liturgical  Question,"  of  1862, 
not  to  name  other  effusions  which  betray,  to  a  mournful  degree,  the  same 
infirmity?  That  tract  is  history,  though  not  "a  Grod-send."  It  should 
never  have  been  written.  Nay  more;  the  thoughts  and  feelings  to  which 
it  gives  the  most  unrestrained  utterance,  should  never  have  been  conceived 
or  cherished  in  a  Christian  mind  or  heart.  But  they  were  cherished.  It 
was  written.  And  until  the  author  recants,  it  bears  its  painful  testimony 
against  him.  Part  of  that  testimony  declares,  that  personal  vituperation 
from  one  who  could  cast  such  indecorous  ridicule  upon /y-ee  prayer,  though 
such  prayer  was  sanctioned  by  the  Church  for  centuries,  rests  upon 
Apostolic  precedent  and  Primitive  usage,  and  was  uniformly  practiced  by 
our  fiithers,  is  of  small  account;  that  to  be  derided  and  denounced,  how- 
ever unsparingly,  by  one  whose  professed  veneration  for  the  past,  did  not 
deter  him  from  pouring  contempt  and  reproach  upon  pulpit  hand-books 
like  the  old  Palatinate  Liturgy,  should  not  be  taken  much  to  heart. 
The  hand  that  had  no  compassion  on  the  tree,  could  not  be  expected  to 
deal  tenderly  with  one  of  its  branches.     Let  me  not  be  censured,  there- 


14  GENERAL    CRITICISM. 

fore,  for  regarding  with  profouud  indifference,  so  far  as  I  am  personally 
concerned,  the  persistent  attempts  of  Dr.  Nevin,  to  cover  me  with  reproach. 
His  calumnies,  however,  badly  meant,  tell  a  far  worse  tale  for  the  fountain 
whence  they  issue,  than  for  the  objects  they  seek  to  aspei-se.  Partizan 
zealotry  may,  of  course,  refuse  to  admit  this.  Its  interests  require  both 
that  I  and  my  former  tract,  should  be  exhibited  in  the  most  odious  light, 
and  that  Dr.  Nevin's  "Vindication"  should  be  shielded  against  censure. 
But  the  case  will  be  adjudicated  before  a  more  equitable  tribunal  than 
partizan  partiality. 

The  unhappy  author  of  that  '-Vindication"  is  not  content,  however, 
with  hurling  the  missiles  of  his  ridicule,  sarcasm,  and  denunciation  at  me 
alone.  His  vast  displeasure  cannot  be  appeased  with  the  attempted  anni- 
hilation of  a  single  mark.  It  must  take  in  a  wider  range.  The  Profes- 
sors in  Tiffin,  and  other  Brethren  of  the  Western  Church,  of  the  same 
mind,  in  regard  to  the  ritualistic  innovations,  not  excepting  the  Rev. 
David  Winters,  one  of  the  Vice  Presidents  of  the  General  Synod,  whose 
years  and  long  continued  faithful  services  in  the  Church,  if  nothing  else, 
should  have  shielded  him  from  such  abuse,  and  the  Delegates  from  the 
Classis  of  North  Carolina,  are  massed  into  one  common  herd,  with  the 
"miserable  faction"  from  the  East,  (including  men  whose  money  Mercers- 
burg  was  glad  enough  to  accept  in  times  past,  and  to  solicit  even  since  the 
tornado  at  Dayton,)  and  assailed  with  equal  fury,  and  the  same  deadly 
weapons.  The  Liturgical  Committee  of  the  Western  Synod  is  ridiculed, 
and  its  labors  are  derided  as  having  resulted  in  an  abortion,  and  come  to 
an  "inglorious  end."  The  title  of  their  specimen  Manual  is  ridiculed. 
The  "Western  Missionary"  is  ridiculed  for  having  displayed  some  zeal 
in  the  case.  The  brethren  from  North  Carolina  are  ridiulced  as  mere 
"cyphers-"  All  indiscriminately  are  branded  as  Gnostics,  Phrygian  Mon- 
tanists.  Rationalists,  Socinians,  Pelagians,  Muggletonians,  and,  worst  of 
all,  as  pietistic  Puritans.  And  why  pierce  them  with  all  these  dreadful 
epithetic  javelins?  Because  they  dared  to  lift  up  their  hand  and  voice  or 
record  only  their  vote  (many,  including  the  North  Carolina  delegates,  did 
no  more  than  merely  vote)  against  Dr.  Nevin's  Mercersburg  "new  meas- 
ures," and  "new  theology."  They  had  withstood  the  edict  of  the  king, 
and  refused  to  do  homage  at  his  shrine.  Were  they  not  worthy  of  the 
consuming  flames? 

Such  is  the  general  spirit  unfortunately  displayed  by  Dr.  Nevin,  and 
especially  in  his  recent  tract,  towards  all  who  adversely  cross  his  path. 
And  whilst  many  of  those  who  in  the  main,  pei-haps,  share  his  sentiments, 
wholly  disapprove  of  his  manner  of  dealing  with  opponents,  it  is  to  be  la- 
mented that  a  few  of  his  more  devoted  pupils  evince  only  too  great  a 
willingness  to  imbibe  the  same  spirit,  and  deplorable  aptitude  in  imitating 


GENERAL   CRITICISM.  15 

its  supercilious,  vindictive  manners.  For  him,  and  those  thus  following 
in  his  footsteps,  it  is  quite  allowable  to  write  and  speak  in  defamatory 
terms  not  only  of  good  and  learned  men  in  other  Churches,  but,  impliedly 
at  least,  of  the  founders  and  fathers  of  our  own  Church  in  this  country, 
decrying  all  as  nothing  better,  on  the  whole,  than  bold  and  shallow  ra- 
tionalists, and  as  abettors  of  a  style  of  worship  "not  distinctively  Chris- 
tian, but  more  or  less  Gnostically  spiritualistic,  ending  at  last  in  mere 
humanitarian  deism."  But  let  any  one  venture  to  demur  at  his  theologi- 
cal discoveries  or  revolutionary  ecclesiastical  schemes,  and  although  the 
demurrer  may  be  couched  in  respectful  terms,  and  be  pressed  in  a  courte- 
ous manner — as  I  may  boldly  affirm  was  done,  both  at  York  and  Day- 
ton— and  at  once  they  are  assailed  with  the  most  caustic  indignation. 
On  the  floor  of  the  Synod  at  York,  Dr.  Harbaugh,  among  other  vulgar 
jests,  held  up  to  public  ridicule  the  Old  Palatinate  form  of  comforting- 
penitents,  by  making  it  appear,  as  he  and  some  others  seemed  to  think, 
absurdly  stupid.  Dr.  Nevin  could  join  in  the  profane  merriment  thus  ex- 
cited, and  cheer  the  speaker  with  an  approving  smile.  But  if  some  one,  un- 
able to  appreciate  the  witticism  indulged  in  dishonor  to  the  Church,  should 
dare  to  denounce  the  system  which  in  this  way  seeks  to  magnify  itself  by 
casting  reproach  upon  the  memory  of  our  fathers,  and  to  win  applause  for 
its  pretended  excellencies  by  detracting  from  their  reputation,  he  must  at 
once  be  run  down  and  crushed.  It  must  be  made  a  fatal,  unpardonable 
offence  to  rebuke  such  raillery,  or  even  to  intimate  that  it  involves  ecclesi- 
astical disloyalty.  All  who  may  differ  from  the  theory,  and  feel  unfa- 
vorable to  the  measures  of  this  school,  must  see  how  terrible  is  the  doom 
of  those  who  may  have  the  audacity  to  challenge  its  leader,  or  attempt  to 
thwart  the  consummation  of  his  schemes.  Love  for  the  Church,  zeal  for 
the  maintenance  of  her  denominational  integrity,  all  go  for  nothing,  unless 
that  love  and  zeal  defer  to  his  fancies,  and  surrender  themselves  as  sub- 
servient instruments  in  the  furtherance  of  his  schemes.  Not  under  the 
irritation  of  some  momentary  offence  at  Synod,  but  for  weeks  and  months, 
this  spirit  of  detraction,  denunciation  and  bitter  hatred  is  harbored  in  the 
depths  of  this  Mercersburg  heart.  And  lest  its  implacable  virulence 
should  be  doubted,  it  gives  proof  of  its  unrelenting  animosity,  by  filling  a 
tract  of  ninety-three  pages,  not  "hastily  written,"  with  its  double-distilled 
wormwood  and  gall. 

Next  to  these  general  remarks,  demanded  by  the  ruling  spirit  and  pre- 
vailing style  of  Dr.  Nevin's  controversial  discussions,  oral  and  written, 
and  emphatically  of  this  last  production  of  his  pen,  his  mode  of  warfare 
requires  the  notice  in  detail  of  some 


16  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

SPECIAL    POINTS. 

These  are  raised  very  much  at  random,  and  are,  indeed,  for  the  most 
part  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  subject  avowedly  under  consideration.  In- 
wardly as  disconnected  from  each  other,  as  they  are  severally  foreign  to 
the  questions  at  issue,  they  can  be  taken  up  one  by  one  in  any  order, 
without  disturbing  their  sense,  or  affecting  the  real  bearing  of  the  various 
sentences  or  paragraphs  in  which  they  occur,  whether  in  the  speech  at 
Dayton  or  in  this  "Vindication."  It  will  have  been  noticed  by  those  to 
whose  attention  they  have  come,  that  they  are  mostly  side  issues,  in  the 
way  of  personal  thrusts.  Their  obvious  aim  is  threefold:  1.  To  inflict  a 
severe  chastisement  upon  offending  parties,  by  holding  them  up  to  mock- 
ery, scorn  and  condemnation :  2,  To  bring,  in  this  way,  the  cause  espoused 
by  those  offenders,  under  derision  and  contempt:  3,  To  divert  calm  and 
earnest  attention  from  the  true  merits  of  that  cause,  and  to  occasion  a 
general  confusion  of  thought  and  judgment  by  the  excitement  and  agita- 
tion thus  produced.  Perhaps  they  might  be  allowed  to  pass  unnoticed, 
without  much  disadvantage  either  to  the  parties  assailed,  or  the  interests 
they  represent.  But  such  disregard  of  them  would  again  be  liable  to 
perverse  interpretations.  And  past  experience  in  our  dealings  with  a 
few  of  the  advocates  of  the  "new  measure^,"  has  taught  us  some  signifi- 
cant lessons  on  this  point.  For  however  irrelevant  "the  points  thus  intro- 
duced are,  they  are  largely  substituted  for  argument,  and  adroitly  made 
to  wear  the  semblance  of  triumphant  answers  to  the  objections  urged,  and 
the  proofs  presented  against  the  proposed  innovations.  And  as  the  re- 
sponsibility of  their  introduction,  and  of  the  consequent  necessity  of  no- 
ticing them,  rests  upon  others  rather  than  upon  ourselves,  it  will  not  be 
thought  an  abuse  of  patience  to  devote  some  space  to  their  consideration. 
They  spring,  furthermore,  wholly  from  the  misapprehensions  and  errors 
of  those  who  raise  them,  and  may,  therefore,  be  treated  as  so  many  ^ra?;e 
mistakes  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  associates  in  this  work. 

The,  ^rs^  mistake  made,  consists  in  asserting  that  my  tract  of  last  No- 
vember charges  the  Lituygical  Committee  with  a  conspiracy  to  perpetrate 
a  fraud  upon  the  Church.  This  grave  accusation  was  started  in  York, 
industriously  propagated  in  private,  reiterated,  with  divers  variations, 
during  a  full  hour  of  the  time  occupied  by  Dr.  Nevin  in  his  speech  at 
Dayton,  and  is  now  again  repeated  in  more  permanent  form  in  the  so- 
called  "Vindication."  The  terms  in  which  the  accusation  is  variously 
expressed,  need  not  be  quoted  here;  it  is  enough  that  they  have  been  se- 
lected by  their  author  as  the  medium  of  giving  vent  to  his  displeasure. 
And  they  shall  most  certainly  not  be  retorted  upon  him,  though  abundant 
occasion  has  been  given  for  such  retort.  I  disdain  to  take  advantage  of 
his   self-exposure.     The  ground  about  my  feet  is  strewn  thick  with  the 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  17 

ugl}'  missiles  used  in  this  part  of  tlie  contest.  They  were  flung  with 
angry  violence,  and  with  malignant  aim.  Doubtless  it  was  meant  that 
they  should  do  fatal  execution.  And  so  they  probably  have  done;  but 
not  upon  their  mark.  They  have  utterly  failed  to  inflict  the  harm  in- 
tended. And  now  they  lie,  scjttered  and  spent,  on  every  side  of  me.  It 
would  only  need  stooping  to  pick  them  up.  But  it  is  better  to  leave 
them  where  they  are.  If  Dr.  Nevin,  or  those  disposed  to  imitate  his 
taste  in  such  archery,  should  feel  inclined  to  use  them  again,  they  may 
come  and  gather  them.     I  shall  not  touch  them,  even  with  my  feet. 

But  apart  from  the  phraseology  employed  in  presenting  the  accusa- 
tion, it  amounts  substantially  to  what  is  stated  above.  I  am  violently 
charged  with  having  indicted  the  Committee  for  a  conspiracy  to  defraud 
the  Church.  And  by  what  means  is  it  attempted  to  sustain  this  charge? 
By  any  fair  and  tangible  proofs  from  any  thing  really  uttered  or  pub- 
lished by  me?  Nothing  of  the  sort  was  heard  on  the  floor  of  the  General 
Synod,  and  nothing  is  furnished  in  the  tract  entitled  a  "Vindication," 
which,  by  any  candid  and  legitimate  interpretation,  can  be  construed  into 
such  an  expressed  or  even  implied  indictment  of  conspiracy.  Admonished 
by  some  things  said  on  the  floor  of  the  Synod  at  York,  of  a  purpose  to 
give  this  false  and  unwarranted  significance  to  the  position  taken  against 
the  majority  of  the  Committee,  I  was  especially  careful  in  my  tract,  subse- 
quently published,  to  disclaim,  in  the  most  positive  terms,  any  such  de- 
sign. (See  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Ritualistic  movement,  &c.,  p. -9.) 
That  disclaimer  is  now  as  positively  reiterated;  and  I  deny  mo&t  unquali- 
fledly,  that  any  paragraph  or  sentence  of  said  tract,  fairly  considered,  jus- 
tifies this  bad  sense.  And  unless  we  are  to  take  Dr.  Nevin's  opprobrious 
denunciations  for  proof,  unless  labored  and  extreme  exag-gerations  shall 
be  allowed  to  pass  for  argument,  unless  to  decry  a  man,  as  a  felon,  is  de- 
monstration that  he  purloined  his  neighbor's  goods,  the  accusation  brought 
against  the  tract  has  not  been  substantiated.  It  is  easy  to  produce  tem- 
porary excitement  by  sueing  a  man  at  law  for  a  libel  or  for  slander.  But 
not  ever.y  such  suit  prevails.  The  prosecution  may  seek  to  make  out  its 
case  in  the  strongest  terms,  may  invoke  the  aid  of  the  most  violent  epi- 
thets,* may  make  the  most  inflammatory  appeals  to  those  sitting  in  judg- 


•••'■  The  Law  of  association  of  ideas  will  reailily  explain  how  the  perusal  of  some  portions 
of  Dr.  Nevin's  tract  served  to  remind  me  of  the  following  incident  recorded  in  Macaulay' s 
History  of  England,  vol.  I.,  pp.  3S6,  Ac:  Boston  ed.  It  is  an  account  of  Baxter's  trial 
before  Lord  Jeffries,  the  notorious  tool  of  the  extreme  High-Church  party,  under  that 
equally  notorious  persecutor  of  the  Puritans,  James  the  Second, 

Baxter  had  begged  for  some  delay,  to  allow  him  time  to  prepare  his  defence. 

"Jeffries  burst  into  a  storm  of  rage.     'Not  a  minute,  he  cried,  to  save  his  life.     I  can' 
deal  with  saints  as  well  as  sinners.     There  stands  Gates  on  one  side  of  the  pillory;  and 
o 


18  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

merit  upon  the  cliarge.  But  all  tliat  will  not  sustain  it.  And  unless 
equity  is  made  subservient  to  passion,  and  justice  is  degraded  into  a 
minion  of  partizan  rancor  and  arbitrary  tyranny,  the  failure  to  sustain  the 
charge  by  clear  and  unquestionable  proof,  must  ensure  the  defendant's 
acquittal. 

The  only  charges  which  can  be  said  to  have  been  made,  even  by  im- 
plication, against  the  course  of  the  Committee,  were  the  following :  1,  diso- 
bedience to  Synodical  instructions:  2,  persevering  efforts  to  work  out 
their  own  ideas  of  ritualism,  rather  than  prepare  such  a  Liturgy  as  the 
official  action  of  the  successive  Synods  called  for:  3,  a  desire  to  secure,  by 
delay,  time  and  opportunity  to  have  the  Church  educated  to  their  standard 
of  worship,  and  thus  to  ensure  its  ultimate  adoption.  These  points, 
moreover,  were  not  brought  out  in  any  formal  way;  it  was  not  within  the 
scope  or  design  of  my  tract,  that  they  should  be.  That  part  of  the  tract 
in  which  they  incidentally  occur,  was  avowedly  a  history  of  the  movement 


if  Baxter  stood  on  the  otlier,  the  two  greatest  rogues  in  the  kingdom  would  stand  to- 
gether. 

"When  the  trial  came  on  at  Guildhall,  a  crowd  of  those  who  loved  and  honored  Bax- 
ter, filled  the  court.  At  his  side  stood  Doctor  William  Bates,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of 
the  Non-conformist  divines.  Two  Whig  barristers,  of  great  note,  Pollexfen  and  Wallop 
appeared  for  the  defendant.  Pollexfen  had  scarcely  begun  his  address  to  the  jury,  when 
the  Chief  Justice  (Jeffries)  broke  forth: 

"  Pollexfen,  I  know  you  well.  I  will  set  a  mark  on  you.  You  are  the  patron  of  the 
faction.  This  is  an  old  rogue,  a  scliismatical  knave,  a  hypocritical  villain.  He  hates  the 
Liturgy.  He  would  have  nothing  but  long-winded  cant,  without  the  book  :  and  then  his 
lordship,  turning  up  his  eyes,  clasped  his  hands,  and  began  to  sing  through  his  nose,  in 
imitation  of  what  he  supposed  to  be  Baxter's  style  of  praying,  '  Lord,  we  are  Thy  peofile, 
Thy  peculiar  people.  Thy  dear  people.'  Pollexfen  gently  reminded  the  court  that  his 
late  majesty  had  thought  Baxter  deserving  of  a  bishopric.  'And  what  ailed  the  old 
blockhead,  then/  cried  Jeffries  'that  he  did  not  take  it.'  His  fury  now  rose  almost  to 
madness.  He  called  Baxter  a  dog,  and  swore  that  it  would  be  no  more  than  justice  to 
whip  such  a  villain  through  the  whole  city.  Wallop  interposed,  but  fared  no  better  than 
his  leader.  'You  are  in  all  these  dirty  causes,  Mr.  Wallop,'  said  the  judge.  'Gentlemen 
of  the  long  robe  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  assist  such  factious  knaves.'  The  advocate 
made  another  attempt  to  obtain  a  hearing, but  to  no  purpose.  'If  you  do  not  know  your 
duty,'  said  Jeffries,  'I  will  teach  it  you.'  Wallop  sat  down;  and  Baxter  himself  at- 
tempted to  put  in  a  word.  But  the  Chief  Justice  drowned  all  expostulation.  'My  lord,' 
said  the  old  man,  'I  have  been  much  blamed  by  dissenters  for  speaking  respectfully  of 
bishops.'  'Baxter  for  bishops,'  cried  the  judge,  'that's  a  merry  conceit,  indeed.  I  know 
what  you  mean  by  bishops,  rascals  like  yourself,  Kidderminster  bishops,  factious,  snivel- 
ling Presbyterians.'  Again,  Baxter  essayed  to  speak,  and  again  Jeffries  roared :  '  Rich- 
ard, Richard,  dost  thou  think  we  will  let  thee  poison  the  court?  Richard,  thou  art  an 
old  knave.  Thou  hast  written  books  enough  to  load  a  cart,  and  every  book  as  full  of 
sedition  as  an  egg  is  full  of  meat.  By  the  grace  of  God,  I'll  look  after  thee.  I  sec  a 
great  many  of  your  brotherhood  waiting  to  see  what  will  befall  their  mighty  Don.  And 
*there  is  a  doctor  (Bates)  of  your  party  at  your  elbow.  But  by  the  grace  of  God  Al- 
mighty, I  will  crush  you  all.'" 

Other  apt  illustrations  might  be  added  from  the  style  in  which  Bcsshuss  denounced 
the  Reformed  faith  and  practice,  as  advocated  by  Ursinus;  but  the  above  will  suffice. 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  19 

wliicli  "had  reached  its  climax  ia  the  Revised  Liturgy.     But  no  one  could 
write  that  history  in  accordance  vfith  actual  facts,  as  furnished  by  official 
documents  and   the   course    really  pursued   by  the   Committee,   without 
bringing  into  view  those  very  points.     That  history  shows  most  conclu- 
sively that  the  Synod  gave  a  definite  expression,  after  mature  delibera- 
tion, of  its  desires  and  purpose  in  entering  upon  the  work  of  providing 
the  Church  with  more  settled  forms  of  worship,  and  that  its  instructions 
were  not  carried  out  by  the  Committee  intrusted  with  the  work  (myself,  I 
regret  to  say,  included,  for  which  I  am  ready  to  be  reproved.)     That  his- 
tory proves  that  instead  of  laboring  to  prepare  and  furnish  such  a  Liturgy 
as  Synod  had  plainly  and  positively  declared  to  be  desired  and  demanded, 
the  Committee  persistently  worked  according  to  its  own  theory  of  cultus 
and  worship,  laboring  to  produce  a  Liturgy  after  its  own  mind  and  heart; 
at  least  that  this  was  the  ruling  aim  of  that  portion  of  the  Committee 
which  favors  the  new  "  Order  of  Worship."     For  Dr.  Nevin,  as  their  fore- 
man, declares  that  all  those  larger  parts  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  which 
aeem  to  have  been  wrought   after  "the  pattern  according  to  which  our 
fathers  worshipped,"  were  not  meant  to  be  in  harmony  with  that  pattern, 
but  are  really  of  the  same  order  with  the  opposite  system,  and  subordinate 
to  it.     And  that  history,  once  more  proves,  that  the  Committee,  or  rather 
those  members  favoring  the  new  "  Order  of  Worship,"  did.  oppose  the  work 
of  revision  from  time  to  time,  because  they  did  not  think  the  Church  pre- 
pared as  yet  for  the  adoption  and  introduction  of  such  an  order  of  worship 
as  they  hoped  the  revision  would  produce,  and  because  they  hoped  that  by 
various  means  the  Church  might  be  educated  into  a  state  of  mind  and 
feeling  which  would  ultimately  be  favorable  to  its  adoption.  ( Vindic.  p   25.) 
Even  Dr.  Nevin,  with  a  measure  of  cool  self-contradiction  which  he 
himself  may  explain,  admits  all  this  substantially,  in  the  tract  of  1862-3, 
(The  Liturgical  Question,  pp.  62,  69),  in  his  speech  at  Dayton,  and  in  his 
so-called  "Vindication."     On  p.  13  of  this  last  tract,  after  denouncing 
me  in  his  own  peculiar  style  for  asserting  this  very  fact,  he  concedes  it 
all  by  saying;  "The  movement  inaugurated  at  JSTorristown  in  IS-IO,  he 
(Bomberger)  says,  contemplated  no  such  Liturgy  as  we  have  now  offered 
for  our  use.      This  is  very  truQ  and  needs  no  argument.'"     But  when  this 
very  same  thing  is  affirmed  by  another  writer  or  speaker,  the  statement  is 
pronounced  erroneous^  though  in  soniewliat  different  terms!     An  offender 
acknowledo'es  his  fault,  but  denounces  the  mention  of  its  name ! 

Is  it  denied  that  the  Committee  did  not  proceed  in  their  work  according 
to  instructions?  Then  I  refer  to  the  resolution  of  the  Synod  of  Norristown, 
1S49;  to  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  Baltimore,  1852;  and  to  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  Synod  of  Easton,  1861.  Taking  these  together,  they  enjoin, 
to  say  the  very  least,  that  ei|ual  regard  shall  be  paid  to  Heformed  Litur- 


20  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

gies  oF  the  IGtli  centuries  with  what  may  be  shown  for  earlier  Liturgies. 
But  the  majority  of  the  Committee  come  forward  in  the  face  of  all  this, 
and  declare  that  their  Liturgy  ^'■was  constructed  througlwiit  on  another 
theory  altogether^'  from  that  of  those  early  Reformed  Liturgies.  Was 
this,  then,  obeying  or  disobeying  instructions? 

Is  it,  again,  denied,  that  the  majority  of  the  Committee  labored  persistent- 
ly to  work  out  their  own  idea  of  ritualism  (whatever  its  source  or  basis  may 
be),  rather  than  to  produce  such  a  Liturgy  as  the  instructions  of  Synod  de- 
manded? Then  I  appeal  once  more,  1,  To  the  plain  tenor  of  those  instruc- 
tions themselves,  which,  if  they  mean  any  thing,  distinctly  call  for  the  prepa- 
ration of  a  work  which  should  be  in  essential,  material  harmony  "with  the 
devotional  and  doctrinal  genius  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,"  and  to 
the  almost  universal  desire  and  expectation  that,  in  the  Revised  Liturgy 
especially,  no  other  would  be  offered  to  the  acceptance  of  the  Church,  2. 
To  the  confessions  of  the  Committee,  that  in  allowing  themselves  to  be 
''■  Tjrought  more  and  more  under  the poicer  of  an  idea,  ivhicli  carried  them 
with  inexorable  force  its  own  way,"  instead  of  heeding  the  rule  which  the 
Synod  had  prescribed,  they  produced  a  Liturgy  which  involves  "  a  ques- 
tion of  very  material  change  in  our  Church  practice,  if  not  in  our  Church 
life,"  and  to  the  fact  that  their  new  "Order  of  Worship"  has  been  drafted 
and  compiled  without  the  least  ruling  regard  to  any  of  the  earlier  German 
Reformed  Liturgies.  Is  this  a  misrepresentation  (Dr.  Nevin  uses  other 
terms  in  speaking  of  the  matter,  which  had  as  well  not  be  quoted),  of  the 
Committee's  course?  Does  this  charge  them  with  any  thing  beyond  their 
own  concession,  and  at  which  Dr.  N.  has  a  right  to  grow  so  excessively  in- 
dignant?    (See  Liturgy.  Q.  p.  39 — 62,  c^  pa.s.sm.) 

Is  it,  finally,  denied,  that  the  authors  and  advocates  of  the  new  "Order 
of  Worship,"  desired  to  secure,  by  delay,  time  and  opportunity  to  have 
the  Church  educated  to  their  standard  of  worship,  and  thus  to  ensure  its 
ultimate  adoption?  Then  I  appeal  1,  in  proof  of  their  effort  to  retard  or 
delay  the  work  of  final  Revision,  to  the  fact  that  they  steadily  and  uni- 
formly ojjposed  every  attempt  made  to  have  the  Revision  undertaJcen. 
They  did  so  at  the  Synod  of  Easton,  in  1861.  They  did  so  during  the 
year  that  followed,  notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  Easton  Synod,  order- 
ing the  Revision,  and  notwithstanding  the  earnest  entreaty  of  that 
obstinate,  intractable  member  of  the  committee,  who  would  not  bend  his 
knee  simply  because  five  other  members  bent  theirs,  that  as  they  saw 
their  way  clear,  they  should  take  it  regardless  of  his  "obstinacy."  They 
did  so  at  Chambersburg,  in  1862,  arraying  their  entire  force,  and  struggling 
for  three  days  to  prevent  the  adoption  of  any  action  by  which  they  would 
be   required  to   go  on  with  the  work;    until  at  length  the  matter  was 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  21 

referred  to  a  special  committee,  of  which  tlie  President  of  Syaod  (the  Rev. 
Dr.  Gerhart),  I  thiuk,  appoiuted  the  Rev.  Dr.  Nevin  Chairman,  and  that 
committee  reported  a  resolution  of  indefinite  postponement.  This  resolution 
was,  after  further  discussion,  adopted,  largely  through  the  influence  of  a 
remark  made  by  a  lay  member  of  the  committee,  to  the  eifect,  that  the  further 
agitation  of  the  matter  might  involve  the  Synod  in  difficulty  with  the 
publishers  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy.*  Agaiu  they  opposed  the  Revision 
at  the  General  Synod  of  Pittsburgh,  in  1863.  And  I  am  persuaded, 
that,  could  they  have  prevailed,  they  would  have  prevented  the  accom- 
plishment of  it  until  this  day. 

2,  I  appeal  to  the  manifest  and  avowed  reasons  for  this  opposition. 
These  I  affirm  to  have  been  twofold.  First,  those  involved  in  a  desire 
that  their  theory  of  worship  should  be  adopted.  That  such  a  desire  ani- 
mated, and  was  cherished  by  them,  must  be  evident  from  their  having 
personally  embraced  the  theory,  from  their  having  recommended  it  to 
Synod,  from  their  repeated  and  extravagant  declarations  in  praise  of  it, 
and  from  their  vehement  defence  of  it  against  all  opposition.  If  the  zeal 
thus  displayed  in  its  favor  during  the  course  of  many  years,  does  not  prove 
the  intensity  of  their  desire  to  secure  its  ultimate  adoption,  it  would  be 
hard  to  find  evidence  of  such  a  desire  in  any  other  case.  Has  it  not  been 
proclaimed  again  and  again,  that  the  new  Order  of  Worship  they  have 
produced  on  this  theory,  is  so  transcendantly  excellent,  that  in  comparison 
with  it,  that  framed  by  our  fathers,  according  to  the  pattern  received  by 
them  from  the  Mount,  does  not  deserve  to  be  called  a  Liturgy?  Do  we 
not  read  their  eloquent  laudations  of  its  inimitable  merits  (although  it  is 
their  own  work),  set  forth  in  avowed  disparagement  of  such  ''pulpit  hand- 
books," as  our  fathers  used,  on  many  an  offensive  page  of  the  notable 
report  of  1862-3  ("The  Liturg.  Question")?  All  that  Dr.  Nevin  has 
said  at  different  times,  and  reiterates  in  this  "  Vindication,"  of  his  lack  of 
heart  in  the  matter,  is  no  offset  to  this  evidence.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at,  that  his  courage  often  failed  him  in  regard  to  the  final  success  of  the 
movement.  He  seems  to  have  had  from  the  start  a  comprehensive  and 
penetrating  view  of  what  it  involved ;  at  least  he  seems  to  have  known  for 
some  years  past,  what  he  meant  by  it.  He  had  a  clear  vision  of  the 
"essential  and  material  changes  in  our  Church  practice  and  life,"  that  is 
in  her  mode  of  worship,  and  of  holding  some  vital  fundamental  doctrines, 
which  it  demanded,  and  sought  to  effect.  And  that,  with  these  fairly 
before  his  eyes,  he  should  often  be  tempted  to  despond  or  despair  of  suc- 
cess, is  not  at  all  amazing.     There  was  good  reason  for  despondency,  if 


-••■  Tliese  facts  were  not  mentioned  in  my  former  tract,  because  I  wished  to  avoid  as 
much  as  possible  every  thing  which  might  seem  offensive.  But  Dr.  Nevin  knjw  them  all, 
for  he  participated  in  what  was  done. 


22  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

lie  liad  any  proper  conception  of  the  deep  and  sincere  attachment  of  the 
general  membership  of  the  Church,  to  her  time-honored  evangelical 
doctrines  and  customs.  A  cedar  of  three  hundred  years  growth,  and  which 
has  so  firmly  entwined  its  roots  about  the  Rock  of  Ages  (the  foundation 
other  than  which  no  man  can  successfully  lay)  is  not  so  easily  to  be  plucked 
up  and  cast  into  the  sea.  But  the  prevalence  of  despondency  does  not 
prove  the  absence  of  desire.  It  is  simply  beyond  contradiction,  that  for 
many  years,  the  ritualistic  members  of  the  committee  have  strongly  desired 
the  success  of  their  scheme,  and  have  labored  with  a  constant  aim  to  this 
end.  Hence,  in  part,  their  strong  and  persistent  opposition  to  the  Re- 
vision. 

Further  reasons,  corroborative  of  all  this  are  furnished  by  the  arguments 
employed  by  the  committee  in  favor  of  delaying  the  Revision.  These 
must  not  simply  be  fresh  in  the  memories  of  those  who  have  attended 
Synods  at  which  the  subject  was  discussed,  but  are  a  matter  of  record. 
Immediate  revision  was  urged  by  those  who  desired  it,  because  the  Pro- 
visional Liturgy  had  proved  a  practical  failure,  especially  as  to  its  more 
ritualistic  peculiarities;  because,  on  actual  trial,  one  of  the  forms  most 
needed,  that  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  found  to  be 
objectionable,  both  ou  account  of  its  length  and  complications;  because, 
through  the  growing  zeal  of  those  who  desired  the  introduction  of  "mate- 
rial and  essential  changes"  in  our  mode  of  worship,  the  Church  was 
becoming  exposed  to  the  perils  of  increased  liturgical  diversities,  and  of 
internal  dissensions ;  and  finally  because  it  was  believed  to  be  desirable 
that  the  whole  question  should  be  settled  as  soon  as  possible.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  such  immediate  revision  was  opposed,  and  mainly  by 
that  portion  of  the  Committee  which  advocated  extreme  ritualistic  forms, 
because  the  Church  was  not  yet  thought  ready  to  appreciate  their  theory 
of  worship,  and,  therefore,  to  pass  an  intelligent  judgment  upon  it;  and 
because  they  claimed  time  and  opportunity  to  educate  the  Church  into  an 
approval  and  acceptance  of  their  theory. 

That  the  former  of  these  reasons  was  correct,  is  too  obvious  to  admit  of 
a  doubt.  It  has  been  demonstrated  practically  by  the  almost  universal 
unwillingness  of  congregations  to  admit  the  ritualistic  forms,  and  by  the 
dissatisfaction  which  has  been  occasioned,  with  possibly  two  exceptions, 
in  those  congregations  into  which  it  has  been  attempted,  cautiously  to 
introduce  the  novelties  even  in  small  part,  and  by  slow  degrees.  And 
in  these  cases,  the  thing  has  been  done  without  affording  the  congregation, 
or  perhaps  even  the  consistor}^,  an  opportunity  to  take  formal  action  upon 
the  matter.  No;  the  Church  has  manifestly  not  been  ready  to  appreciate 
the  ritualistic  "new  measures"  in  the  Committee's  sense.  But  it  is 
equally  evident  that  the  Church  was  thought  ready  to  reject  them.     Or 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  23 

else  wliy  has  there  been  so  persistent  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  advocates 
of  those  niQASures,  to  evade  and  prevent  a  fair  and  square  vote  upon  the 
real  merits  of  their  scheme  ?  And  why  was  this  done  with  such  consum- 
mate skill  even  at  the  General  Synod  in  Dayton,  the  action  of  which 
Synod  Dr.  Nevin  claims,  most  erroneously  as  shall  be  shown,  as  a  com- 
plete triumph  of  ritualism? 

Of  the  other  plea,  that  time  should  be  allowed  for  the  ritualistic  train- 
ing of  the  Church,  it  is  difficult  to  speak  without  ridicule  or  reprobation. 
It  involves  such  absurd  sophistry  and  a  begging  of  the  question,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  so  much  of  design  and  artifice  on  the  other,  that  it  seems 
incredible  how  the  fallacy  and  deeeptiveness  of  it  should  have  escaped  the 
discernment  of  the  Committee.  Grant  time  and  opportunity  to  educate 
the  Church  into  an  acceptance  of  the  "new  measures"?  Who  does  not 
see  that  in  this  way  the  most  orthodox  and  evangelical  Church  might,  in 
the  course  of  a  single  generation,  be  converted  into  a  very  synagogue  of 
heresy  and  superstition  ?  Let  our  schools  come  under  the  reigning  influ- 
ence of  Unitarianism.  Let  our  congregations  be  supplied  for  successive 
years  with  pastors  inculcating  Unitarian  views.  Let  the  children  and 
youth  of  the  Church  have  Unitarian  books  of  devotion  and  for  reading^ 
placed  in  their  hands,  and  be  taught  Unitarian  doctrines.  How  long  would 
it  take,  by  this  method,  for  Drs.  Bellows,  Furness,  and  Osgood,  to  kindle  in 
the  Church  such  ardent  zeal  for  their  theory  of  Christianity,  that  its  ge- 
neral adoption  would  be  insured?  And  an  experiment  tried  in  the  same 
way,  with  any  other  system  of  error,  would  lead  to  the  same  result. 

Can  Dr.  Nevin  have  been  ignorant  of  this  fact,  or  have  overlooked  it? 
Could  he  have  forgotten  the  history  of  the  Anxious  Bench  innovations, 
and  its  significant  lessons  ?  It  was  by  the  application  and  success  of  this 
very  scheme  of  education,  that  those  innovations  gained  the  ascendancy 
and  power  in  the  Church,  which  they  enjoyed  thirty  years  ago.  And  it 
was  largely  upon  their  supposed  deceptive  and  mischievous  influence  in  an 
educational  view,  that  Dr.  Nevin  so  vehemently  denounced  the  system  in 
his  tract  on  the  Anxious  Bench  System,  in  1842—4.  So  far,  also,  he  was 
right,  if  that  system  was  pernicious,  and  subversive  of  the  evangelical  doc- 
trines and  customs  of  our  Church.  But  is  this  educational  theory,  applied 
to  innovations,  to  "material  and  essential  changes,"  any  less  unfair  and  de- 
ceptive now  than  it  was  then? 

Evidently,  therefore,  before  such  innovations  are  attempted,  their  true 
character  and  their  necessary  tendencies  should  be  ascertained  and  decided 
upon.  They  should  be  carefully  examined,  and  properly  authorized  in  the 
constitutional  way.  To  prevent  or  evade  this,  lest  they  should  be  rejected, 
even  as  an  experiment,  is  wrong,  and  must  expose  the  Church  to  danger. 
Are  they  so  profound  in  their  principles,  so  transcendantly  excellent  in 


24  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

their  spirit  and  orgauism,  that  the  Church  is  incompetent  to  pass  an  intel- 
ligent judgment  upon  them,  even  after  years  of  opportunity  to  examine 
their  merits?  Then  an  evangelical  Church,  fully  conscious  of  the  intrinsic 
and  tried  worth  of  those  spiritual  blessings  v/hich  it  actually  possesses,  had 
better  let  the  innovations,  vfith  all  their  mysterious  and  incomprehensible 
superiority,  alone. 

But  by  what  means  was  this  educational  success  of  the  new  order  of 
worship  to  be  secured  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  obvious.  It  is 
well  known  what  agencies  the  advocates  of  ritualism  have  had  under  their 
control,  and  how  diligently  they  have  been  used.  And  it  must  be  equally 
aj)pareut,  that  with  such  use  of  those  means,  the  success  of  the  movement 
would  be  only  a  question  of  time.  Not  all  the  specious  plausibility  with 
which  Dr.  Nevin  may  plead  the  case  in  his  tract,  or  Dr.  Wolff  in  his  arti- 
cles upon  the  subject  in  the  German  Reformed  Ilessenger,  during  the 
months  of  January  and  February,  can  blind  the  eyes  of  considerate  per- 
sons to  these  facts.  Neither  can  any  fail  to  see,  that  by  the  natural  course 
of  things,  the  final  result  thus  gained  would  be,  not  the  decision  and  choice 
of  the  German  Reformed  Church  as  such,  but  of  that  Church  as  ritualisti- 
cally  educated,  and  converted  to  the  new  faith — both  in  regard  to  her  wor- 
ship and  her  life.  Of  course,  after  having  had  time  thus  to  educate  and 
convert  her,  the  formal  entire  adoption  of  the  "new  measures"  would  be 
virtually  secured. 

This,  then,  is  what  was  implied  or  said,  and  no  more  than  this,  in  those 
portions  of  the  historical  section  of  my  former  tract,  which  Dr.  Nevin  al- 
lowed so  greatly  to  infuriate  him.  And  it  is  this,  no  more  than  this,  which 
has  been  so  unjustly  and  violently  exaggerated  and  distorted  into  an  accu- 
sation, the  very  sound  of  which  might  excite  indignation,  and  inflame  bit- 
ter passions  against  me.     But  what  becomes  of  all  those  vituperations  now  ? 

Another  grave  mistake  committed  by  Dr.  Nevin  in  his  assault,  is  the  at- 
tempt to  make  out  a  special  point  against  me  on  the  ground  of-wi/  alleged 
■inconsistencies.  Both  in  the  speech  at  Dayton  and  in  his  present  tract, 
humorous  and  exultant  allusions  are  found  to  a  supposed  absurd  contradic- 
tion between  my  views  in  1853  and  1857,  and  my  present  opposition  to  the 
new  Order  of  Worship.  As  it  will  be  shown,  presently,  that  Dr.  Nevin 
himself  seems  to  make  little  account  of  ecclesiastical  and  theological  vicis- 
situdes, this  point  may  be  very  briefly  disposed  of.  Regarding  the  articles 
in  the  Mercersburg  Review  for  1853,  he  has  by  some  strange  error,  over- 
looked or  forgotten  three  facts: — (1.)  That  with  but  one  exception,  and 
that  in  a  modified  form,  the  charges  of  error  involved  in  the  discussion, 
were  altogether  different  from  those  involved  in  the  present  controversy. 
(2.)  That  whilst  defending  the  Church  against  the  reproach  of  endorsing 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  25 

doctrines  at  variance  with  evangelical  orthodoxy  by  her  toleration  of  Dr. 
Nevin's  views,  decided  dissent  from  some  of  those  views  is  expressed  on  pp. 
1G9, 170,  especially  the  foot-note,  and  177-8.  It  is  a  pity  that  these  pages 
were  not  consulted  before  the  ridicule  was  indulged  in.  (3.)  That  prior 
to  1853  Dr.  Nevin  had  written  no  such  tract  as  the  Liturgical  Question  of 
ten  years  later.  At  that  time  yet,  his  great  aim  seemed  to  be,  to  have  the 
Church  fully  brought  back  to  her  historical  character,  and  true,  legitimate 
usages;  not  to  introduce  into  her  midst  a  new  order  of  things,  "not  after 
the  pattern  strictly  of  any  system  of  worship  which  has  prevailed  hitherto 
(1863)  in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  either  in  this  country  or  in  Eu- 
rope." See  very  particularly  the  closing  chapter  of  the  "■  Anxious  Bench."* 
With  reference  to  the  article  of  1857,  in  which  the  general  character 
and  contents  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy  (issued  that  Fall),  are  commended, 
it  will  be  sufficient  to  reply :  That  the  commendation  was  meant  to  apply 
to  what  many  considered  the  main,  as  they  were  hy  far  the  larger  portions  of 
the  work.  Those  are  forms  framed  after  the  pattern  according  to  which 
our  fathers,  from  the  first,  did  worship.  Let  them  but  be  examined- 
There  are  four  different  forms  for  the  Lord's  day.  The  first  is  after  the 
new  system;  but  it  was  said  that  even  it  might  be  used  without  the  ritual- 
istic peculiarities.  So  I  supposed  it  mostly  would  be.  And  so,  with  but  eight 
or  ten  exceptions,  it  has  been,  at  least  until  last  November.  The  second 
has  simply  five  amens,  and  even  these  are  not  directed  to  be  used  respon- 
sively  by  the  people.  It  has  no  formal  confession  and  declaration  of  par- 
don, calls  for  no  recital  of  the  Creed  by  the  people,  but  only  by  the  minis- 
ter, and  expressly  allows  free  prayer  at  the  close  of  the  service.  The  third 
provides  merely  an  invocation  and  a  general  prayer,  without  an  amen,  and 
gives  no  concluding  prayer  at  all.  The  fourth  is  like  the  third,  excepting 
that  even  a  prescribed  invocation  is  wanting.  There  are  fifteen  prayers 
for  Festival  seasons.  They  are  not  short  collects,  but  long  prayers.  JV^ot 
one  of  them  has  responses,  not  even  an  amen,  excepting  the  second  form  for 
Good  Friday.  Thus  far,  then,  we  have  seventeen  non-responsive,  simple 
forms,  to  two  of  the  other  kind,  and  one  of  these  two  is  applicable  to  but 
one  day  in  the  year.  Whose  statement,  then,  is  open  to  the  charge  of 
"miserable  special  pleading"  in  this  matter;  mine,  in  affirming  that  the 
Provisional  Liturgy  was  for  the  most  part  a  book  of  forms,  like  those  used 
in  past  years  in  the  German  Reformed  Church;  or  Dr.  Nevin,  in  claiming 
it  as  a  book  predominantly  ritualistic  in  his  sense  ?,  The  form  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  first  form  for  Baptism,  with 


*  As  this  interesting  work  may  be  out  of  print,  and  but  few  of  our  members  may  pos- 
sess copies,  the  desirableness  of  re-publishing  the  chapter  referred  to,  and  even  some 
other  portions  is  respectfully  suggested  to  the  editor  of  the  German  lieformed  Messen'jcr> 
and  of  the  Mercerahurfj  Review. 


26  SPECIAL,  POINTS. 

some  others  for  such  special  occasw7is,  have  indeed  prominent  ritualistic 
peculiarities.  But  does  Dr.  Nevin,  does  the  Committee,  forget,  that  when 
objections  were  made  to  these,  it  was  commonly  answered:  They  can  be 
used  without  those  peculiarities,  and  contain  enough  that  is  good  even 
when  those  are  omitted  ?  And  do  they  not  know  that  they  have  been  al- 
most generally  so  used  by  our  ministers  ? 

In  regard  to  some  doctrinal  peculiarities  of  the  book,  I  have  only  to 
say,  that  if  they  had  been  explained  and  understood,  as  they  now  are,  I 
would  never  have  even  qualifiedly  approved  of  them.  There  are  members 
of  the  Committee  who  know  that  I  never  held  the  views  now  believed  to 
be  contained  in  several  of  the  forms  of  the  New  Order  of  Worship. 

Especially  does  Dr.  Nevin  know  this  to  have  been  the  case.  From  my 
entire  course  as  a  member  of  the  Committee,  he  could  not  have  failed  to 
be  convinced  that  I  was  at  no  time  committed  to  his  peculiar  views,  doc- 
trinal or  liturgical.  If  he  cannot  recall  more  than  one  occasion  on  which 
I  decidedly  objected  to  those  views,  his  memory  is  much  more  treacherous 
on  this  point  than  on  some  others  connected  with  my  course.  And  he 
could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  my  conditional  approval 
of  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  was  based  almost  wholly  on  the  correspon- 
dence of  by  far  the  larger  portions  of  that  work,  with  that  system  of 
worship  known  as  Grerman  Reformed,  and  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
remaining  portions,  containing  as  they  did  much  that  was  good,  might  be 
used  without  their  more  ritualistic  peculiarities,  and  objectionable  doc- 
trinal phrases.  He  and  I,  it  seems,  viewed  the  book  in  essentially  differ- 
ent aspects.  To  him,  the  innovations  it  contained  were  the  chief  thing. 
To  me,  its  numerous  excellencies,  wholly  separable  and  apart  from  those 
innovations,  were  the  chief  thing.  My  mind  and  heart  were  set  on  those 
contents  of  the  book  which  mainly  corresponded  with  our  past  faith  and 
practice,  and  might,  after  some  subsequent  modifications,  be  made  to  serve 
for  the  edification  of  the  Church.  His  heart  was  set  upon  its  more  ex- 
treme and  radical  qualities.  To  a  man  to  whom  a  piece  of  poisoned  bread 
or  a  cup  of  poisoned  wine  is  offered,  the  wine  and  the  bread  are  the  at- 
traction. To  him  who  ofi"ers  them,  however,  the  chief  thing  is  the  poison 
they  contain. 

But  even  if  this  charge  of  inconsistency  could  not  be  thus  refuted  by 
the  facts  in  the  case,  it  may  be  fully  met  by  showing  the  uncertain  charac- 
ter of  the  standard  by  which  Dr.  Nevin  seems  to  determine  a  man's  con- 
sistency or  inconsistency.  That  standard  is  assumed,  by  his  allusion  to 
the  articles  of  1853,  to  be  himself  and  his  views.  But  it  is  an  essential 
quality  of  a  standard  in  such  matters,  that  it  should  be  somewhat  uniform 
and  fixed.  It  seems  altogether  proper,  therefore,  to  ask  whether,  and  how 
far,  this  quality  is  found  in  the  case  in  hand?     Let  the  following  few  con- 


SPECIAL    POINTS. 


27 


trasts,  selected  "from  among  many  wliicli  might  be  given, 
'answer. 


furnish   the 


DK.  NEVIN  IN  1840-47. 
"The  more  zve  can  be  brought  to  commune 
familiarly  and  freely  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Reformation,  as  it  wrought  mightily  in 
the  deeds,  and  uttered  itself  powerfully 
in  the  words  of  our  ecclesiastical  ances- 
try, the  better  is  it  likely  to  be  with  us  in 
all  respects,  at  the  present  time  *  *  * 
Let  us  have  progress,  by  all  means  ;  but 
let  it  be  progress  iipivards,  ivithin  the 
sphere  of  the  original  life  of  the  Church  it- 
self, as  a  tree  unfolds  itself  in  growth, 
and  is  the  same  tree  still ;  not  progress 
ouiirards,  by  which  the  life  of  the  past, 
together  with  its  for/n,  is  renounced,  and 
"  another  gospel  introduced  in  the  room 
of  the  old." — (History  and  Genius  of 
the  Heidelb.  Catech.,  by  J.  AV.  Nevin, 
D.D.,  Prof,  of  Theology  in  the  Seminai-y 
of  the  G.  R.  Church  in  Mercersburg. — 
Ger.  Eef.  Messenger,  Dec.  9,  1840, 
Revised,  &c.,  1847). 


DK.   NEVIN    IN    1862-3. 

"Must  our  new  Liturgy  be  of  one 
kind  in  manner  and  form,  iti  genius  and 
spirit,  with  the  Reformed  Liturgies  of 
the  16th  century,  having  these  only  for 
its  basis,  and  following  them  as  its  rule  ? 
*  *  *  Let  the  answer  be  in  favor  of 
a  new  order  of  worship,  more  liturgical 
in  tiie  old  sense  of  the  term  than  the  Li- 
turgies of  the  16th  century,  and  in- 
volving a  reform  of  our  past  practice,  an- 
swerable to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  our 
Church  at  the  present  time.  *  *  *  * 
The  Rrovisional  Liturgy  has  not  pro- 
fessed at  all  to  be  of  one  order,  simply 
with  the  Liturgical  practice  of  the  Gex'- 
man  Reformed  Church  in  the  16th  cen- 
tury; *  '*  it  was  constructed  throughout 
on  another  theory  altogether;  *  *  it 
makes  common  cause  with  the  Liturgies 
of  the  ancient  Church.  *  *  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  very  material  change  in  our  church 
practice,  if  not  in  our  church  life." — (Li- 
turgical Question,  pp.  61,  62,  69). 


DR.  NEVIN  IN  1844. 
"The  Second  Century  shows  us  the 
whole  Christian  world  brilliantly  illumi- 
nated with  rival  systems  of  quackery, 
under  the  name  of  Gnosticism,  which 
for  a  time  seemed  to  darken  the  sun  of 
truth  itself  by  their  false  but  powerful 
glare.  Afterwards,  under  a  less  idealis- 
tic garb,  the  evil  fairly  enthroned  itself 
in  the  Church.  The  Reformation  was  the 
resurrection  of  the  Truth  once  more,  in  its 
genuine  original  life." — (Anxious  Bench, 
2d  Ed.,  p.  51.     See  also  p.  53). 


DR.  N5VIN  IN    1866-7. 

"A  modern  confessionalism  in  this 
way  made  to  rule  out  the  sense  of  the 
older  confessionalism  in  which,  never- 
theless, it  professed  to  have  its  own  root 
and  ground!  Did  we  not  hear  this  non- 
sense gravely  held  forth  at  Synod? 
Were  we  not  told  there  that  we  are  to 
take  the  creed  only  in  the  sense  of  the 
fathers  of  the  16th  century,  and  not  in 
the  sense  of  the  fathers  who  used  it  in  the 
second  and  third  centuries,  if  this  last  sense 
should  be  found  not  to  square  exactly  with 
the  sixteenth  century  sense,  as  it  was  quiet- 
ly granted,  might  be  the  case?  *  *  * 
How  superlatively  absurd ! — (Vindication, 
&c.,  p.  74). 


28  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

DR.   NEVIN   AGAIN    IN  1844.  DR.  NEVIN   IN    1862-3 

ujf  *  *  *  ffcnuflcciions  and  2^1'os-  "Whe]>e  the  sense  of  the  Liturgical 
trations  in  the  aisle  or  around  the  altar,  prevails  in  this  sort  *  *  there  must 
*  %  *  •  *  *  *  have  no  connection  be  gestures  and  postures  significant  of 
in  fact  with  true,  serious  religion,  *  *  faith  in  what  the  service  thus  means." 
*  let  the  fact  be  openly  proclaimed."  "Let  it  be  considered  a  part  of  reli- 
"The  Romish  Church  has  always  de-  gion  to  do  bodily  reverence,  in  all  pro- 
lighted  in  arrangements  and  services  per  ways,  to  the  sacramental  holiness 
animated  with  the  same  false  spirit.  In  which  is  felt  to  inhabit  the  house  of  God. 
her  penitential  system,  pains  have  been  Let  all  faces,  in  the  time  of  prayer,  be 
taken  to  produce  cfect  by  means  of  out-  turned  towards  the  altar.  Let  there  be 
■ward postures  and  dress,  till  in  the  end,  risings  and  bowings,  where  it  may  seeui 
amid  the  solemn  mummery,  no  room  to  be  meet,  in  token  of  the  consenting 
has  been  left  at  all  for  genuine  peni-  adorations  of  the  people."— ("The  Li- 
tence.  Yet  not  a  ceremony  was  ever  in-  turgical  Question,"  pp.  33,  35). 
traduced  into  the   system,  that  did  not 

seem  to  be  recommended  by  some  sound  ^^-  nevin  in  Ibbb. 

religious  reason  at  the  time." — (Anx.  B.  "I  stand  tioiv  ichere  I  did  ivhile  a  Pro- 

pp.  28,  39).  fessor  at  Mercershurg.'^ — (Liturgical  Dis- 
cussion at  Dayton.  See  German  Ref. 
Messenger,  Jan.  2,  1867.) 

From  these  contrasted  quotations  it  is  very  evident  tliat  Dr.  Nevin  has, 
in  the  course  of  some  years,  materially  "  changed  his  mind.  This  he  had 
a  right  to  do;  but  his  testimony  of  the  past  is  of  some  value  in  accepting 
that  of  the  present."  In  the  face,  however,  of  such  marked  contrasts,  no 
one,  surely,  should  be  held  chargeable  with  unpardonable  inconsistency, 
for  agreeing  on  some  points  with  Dr.  Nevin  in  1853,  and  then  opposing 
some  of  his  favorite  measures  in  1867!  The  fault  or  folly  of  such  incon- 
sistency rests  rather  on  himself,  and  upon  those  who  so  closely  follow  in 
his  steps,  that  they  adiiere  to  him  through  all  these  variations!  "A  truce, 
however,  to  this  pleasantry  I" 

A  tJiircl  unfortunate  mistake  committed  by  the  offended  author  of  the 
"Vindication,"  is  that  of  stigmatising  his  opponents  with  ^'factiousness." 
The  delegates  from  the  Eastern  Synod,  who  could  not  support  his  extreme 
ritualistic  measures,  or  endorse  those  of  his  doctrinal  views  which  are 
manifestly  at  variance  with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  as  interpreted  by 
its  authors  and  the  early  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church,  are  rather 
rudely  styled  a  "  factious  element,"  "a  miserable  faction  of  the  Eastern 
Synod."  The  "brethren  of  the  Western  Synod"  are  charged  with  having 
"joined  hands"  with  that  "miserable  faction,"  and  so  made  themselves 
partakers  of  its  sin.  All  attempt,  therefore,  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the 
new  measures,  and  prevent  their  adoption,  is  denounced  &&  factiousness. 

Now  a  '^ faction"  is  an  unlawful  and  disorderly  combination  against  the 
constitutional  acts  of  a  government,  civil  or  ecclesiastical;  a  party  that 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  29 

seeks,  by  sucli  combination,  to  excite  or  promote  discord  and  contention. 
And  Dr.  Nevin  plainly  means  to  say,  by  liis  application  of  this  term  to 
those  who  oppose  his  measures,  that  they  are  guilty  of  being  engaged  in 
such  an  unlawful  combination. 

But  before  there  can  be  any  factious  combination  like  this,  there  must 
be  constitutional  acts  to  be  opposed.  So  before  any  members  of  the  Synod 
could  be  guilty  of  such  factiousness,  Synod  must  have  adopted,  in  the  con- 
stitutional way,  the  ritualistic  peculiarities  opposed.  The  General  Synod 
had,  of  course,  not  done  so,  and  did  not  by  its  action  taken  upon  the  subject. 
That  the  Eastern  Synod  never  did,  was  demonstrated  by  the  official  evi- 
dence presented  in  that  tract,  which  furnished  the  advocates  of  the  new 
measures,  with  so  much  matter  in  their  debates  at  Dayton;  and  will  be 
shown  still  more  fully  under  the  "  historical"  section  of  the  present  tract. 
Dr.  Nevin's  sweeping  and  unwarranted  assumption  to  the  contrary,  will 
then  be  satisfiictorily  disposed  of. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  factiousness  consisted  in  the  attempt 
of  the  delegates  accused  to  foment  discord  and  contention  in  the  Church. 
That  is,  t]ien,  because  their  opposition  to  proposed  new  measures  produced 
some  excitement  and  controversy,  they  are  to  be  blamed  for  any  such 
unhappy  effect  of  that  opposition!  An  effort  is  made  "  materially  and 
essentially"  to  change  the  Liturgical  usages  of  a  Church.  There  are 
many  in  the  Church  who  feel  fully  convinced  that  the  changes  advocated 
are  radically  revolutionary,  and  would  prove  hurtful.  But  those  who 
proposed  the  changes,  and  who  advocate  them,  are  strongly  deter- 
mined to  secure '  their  introduction,  and  any  attempt  to  arrest  or  resist 
the  movement,  will  produce  excitement  and  dissension.  Therefore  no 
such  attempt  can  be  made  without  rendering  those  who  make  it  liable  to 
the  charge  of  flictiousness !  And  hence,  the  new  measure  party  should 
be  allowed  to  have  their  way! — Such  seems  to  be  Dr.  Nevin's  argument. 
Would  any  intelligent  man,  writing  or  speaking  with  the  calmness  of  con- 
scious truth,  stake  his  reputation  on  reasoning  like  this? 

But  however  absurd  the  logic  of  an  argument  like  this  may  be,  the 
policy  which  it  implies  is  sufficiently  clear  and  ingenious.  For  it  demands 
just  what  all  innovations,  however  subversive  of  established  principles  and 
.practices  they  may  be,  most  need  to  ensure  their  success.  Only  let  them 
alone.  Let  no  one  expose  their  true  character,  or  attempt  to  arrest  their 
progress.  Give  them  full  scope  and  sufficient  time  for  a  trial  of  their 
merits,  and  for  educating  the  Church  into  their  peculiarities.  Place  the 
children  under  their  influence.  Teach  the  youth  of  the  Church  their  ex- 
cellence. Introduce  them  gradually  and  cautiously  into  the  public  ser- 
vices of  the  congregations.  Train  candidates  for  the  ministry  in  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  and  even  incidentally  during  their  collegiate  course;  by 


30  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

this  metliod;  to  look  upon  tlio  old  order  of  tlie  Cliurcli  witli  contempt,  and 
to  regard  this  new  order  of  things  as  incomparably  superior  and  more 
profound.  Use  largely  the  papers  of  the  Church  in  advocating,  defend- 
ing and  recommending  them,  especially  by  carricature  contrasts  of  the 
principles  and  customs  which  are  to  be  abrogated  in  favor  of  the  innova- 
tions. Only  allow  this,  nothing  more;  and  this,  too,  for  but  a  single 
generation,  say  thirty  years!  Then,  after  such  quiet  and  peaceful  trial  of 
the  new  system,  if  it  is  not  liked,  it  may  be  set  aside! 

Shall  an  exposure  of  a  policy  like  this,  and  opposition  to  its  measures, 
be  stigmatized  as  factiousness?  Shall  those  who,  being  zealously  and  in- 
telligently attached  to  the  system  of  faith  and  worship  received  from  their 
fathers,  and  convinced  that  the  new  order  urged  is  but  the  revival  of  old, 
exploded  and  pernicious  errors,  contend  for  the  maintenance  of  the  es- 
tablished system,  and  resist  the  encroachments  of  the  new  system,  be  de- 
nounced as  seditious  troublers  in  Israel,  and  indicted  for  treason?  The 
mere  questions  must  show  how  preposterous  are  the  demands  of  the  new 
measure  policy,  and  how  unjust  are  Dr.  Nevin's  sarcasms  and  maledic- 
tions. 

It  is,  furthermore,  to  be  distinctly  kept  in  mind,  that  the  delegates  thus 
stigmatized,  represented ,  in  the  General  Synod,  not  the  Eastern  or  Western 
)Sj/uods,  hut  the  Classes,  and  the  Church.  Dr.  Nevin,  therefore,  has  erred 
again  in  his  great  -excitement,  in  designating  the  members  from  the  East, 
as  "a  miserable  faction  from  the  Eastern  Synod."  They  were  not, 
properly,  the  representatives  of  the  Eastern  Synod,  and  were  consequently 
under  no  obligations  to  defend  or  support  its  measures,  even  had  that  Sy- 
nod adopted  and  recommended  the  new  system,  which  it  did  not.  On  the 
contrary,  it  was  their  right  and  their  duty  to  do  what  they  could,  in  every 
lawful  and  proper  way,  to  defeat  the  desires  and  policy  of  the  new-measure 
party.  And  they  may  confidently  appeal  from  the  unjust  condemnation 
of  an  angry  anathematizer,  to  the  calm  and  impartial  judgment  of  their 
constituents,  for  a  reversal  of  his  sentence. 

But  the  censured  faction  is  also  denounced  as  '^  miscrallc."  This  term 
of  contempt  cannot  apply,  of  course,  to  the  personality  pf  those  referred 
to;  for  they  were  severally,  as  said  before,  the  equals  of  Dr.  Nevin  and 
his  associates,  in  every  essential  respect.  His  contempt  for  them  does  not 
at  all  abate  from  their  private  or  official  worth,  and  will,  probably,  have 
no  disparaging  effect  upon  the  estimation  in  which  the  Church  at  large 
may  be  kindly  pleased  to  hold  them.  According  to  the  standard  by  which 
he  weighs  or  measures  his  opponents,  they  may  be  set  down  by  him  as  "  a 
miserable"  set,  "a  clique,"  "a  junto,"  as  dupes  of  "ultra-montaue  jeal- 
ousy." But  that  standard  has  been  found  somewhat  unreliable  when  ap- 
plied to  the  charge  of  inconsisfc7icies,  and  possibly  may  not  be  admitted 
here. 


SPECIAL    POINTS,  31 

It  must  be  noted,  also,  that  this  ^'faction,"  with  those  Brethren  in  the 
"West  who  more  actively  joined  it,  were  Dr.  Neviu's  own  pupils,  with  hut 
a  few  exceptions.  They  were  trained  for  the  ministry  by  his  own  hands, 
and  taught  theology  by  his  own  lips.  Nay  more.  While  under  his  tui- 
tion, they  had  largely  imbibed  the  doctrines  which  he  then  taught,  and 
the  precise  tenor  of  which  they  have  better  means  of  knowing  than  their 
mere  remembrance  of  them.  More  than  one  copy  of  carefully  written 
notes  of  his  eai'lier  lectures  is  within  their  reach.  To  the  doctrines  then 
taught,  they,  in  the  main,  adhere.  For  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical 
order  and  church  worship  then  inculcated,  they  cherish  a  cordial  regard, 
and  now  feel  constrained  to  contend.  ^If  Dr.  Nevin  has  changed  his  creed 
and  his  views  of  a  truly  Christian  apostolic  cultus,  the  responsibility  of 
such  change  rests  with  him.  They  do  not  feel  warranted  in  keeping  up 
with  his  theological  vicissitudes.  They  stand  where  he  then  professed  to 
stand,  while  a  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Seminary  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church  at  Mercersburg.  If,  for  maintaining  firmly  that  posi- 
tion, in  antagonism  to  his  subsequent  developments,  they  are  to  be  stig- 
matized as  a  "miserable  faction,"  or  abettors  of  a  faction,  they  glory  in 
the  reproach.  As  for  his  shamefully  contemptuous  reference  to  the 
Brethren  from  North  Carolina,  one  of  them,  former  pupil  of  his,  the  Rev. 
Gr.  W.  Welker,  has  sufficiently  rebuked  it  in  the  communication  appended 
to  this  tract. 

It  may,  however,  be  the  author's  design  to  apply  the  term  "miserable" 
to  the  numerical  strength  of  the  so-called  faction.  Knowing  well  the 
power  and  influence  which  numbers  frequently  possess,  an  eifort  is  made 
to  produce  the  impression  that  those  who  have  felt  constrained  to  oppose 
the  introduction  of  an  extreme  liturgical  order  of  worship  into  the  Church, 
are  so  few  in  number,  as  to  constitute  only  a  very  contemptible  minority, 
especially  so  far  as  the  Eastern  Synod  is  concerned.  But  mark  now  the 
method  of  calculation  by  which  Dr.  Nevin  struggles  to  make  out  his  case. 
First,  he  asserts  that  the  Eastern  Synod  "had  all  along  been  backing  the 
course  of  the  Committee"  (Vindic,  p.  39),  in  regard  to  these  extreme 
measures.  Next,  he  assumes  that  all  the  other  members  of  the  Committee 
but  myself,  were  wholly  of  one  mind  in  regard  to  all  the  peculiarities  of 
the  Revised  Liturgy,  so  that  they  stood  "ten  to  one."  In  the  third  place, 
he  appeals  to  the  action  taken  at  York  last  October,  as  a  full  and  formal 
endorsement  of  the  Revised  Liturgy.  Fourthly,  he  counts  all  who  voted 
at  York  for  the  resolutions  adopted  there,  as  friends  of  the  new  Order  of 
Worship.  In  like  manner,  fifthly,  he  counts  all  who  voted  for  the  Re- 
port adopted  at  Dayton,  by  a  majority  of  seven  in  a  vote  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty-one  members,  as  endorsing  the  new  Order.  And  then,  finally, 
he  sets  down  the  fifteen  delegates  from  the  Eastern  Synod,  who  voted  against 


32  SPECIAL   rOIXTS. 

the  Report  adopted  at  Dayton,  as  "a  miserable  faction."  Of  the  first  two 
assumptions,  notice  will  be  taken  further  on.  In  reference  to  the  third, 
it  will  be  sufficient,  now^  to  expose  its  great  unfairness  and  fallacy,  by  re- 
minding the  reader  of  two  significant  facts  which  Dr.  Nevin  has  seen  fit 
to  ignore  or  overlook.  One  of  these  facts  is,  that  the  3d  Resolution  of 
the  Report  adopted  at  York,  and  quoted  in  the  "Vindication,"  is  not  the 
resolution  which  was  originally  presented,  and  which  the  advocates  of  the 
new  Order  would  have  been  glad  to  cairy.  The  original  resolution  ex- 
pressed full  approval  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  and  recommended  it  to  the 
General  Synod.  Dr.  Nevin  knew  this  very  well.  Why,  then,  if  the 
York  Synod  was  so  strongly  in  favor  of  backing  the  Committee's  course 
all  along,  was  that  resolution  not  passed?  Why,  if  there  was  only  a 
"miserable  faction"  opposed  to  the  book  presented  by  the  Committee,  was 
that  faction  not  rebuked,  by  voting  them  down  by  an  overwhelming  ma- 
jority? And  once  more,  why  does  Dr.  Nevin  so  carefully  conceal  the. 
fact,  that  after  a  long  debate,  the  original  resolution  was  so  essentially 
changed  into  its  present  form?  Is  this  a  specimen  of  the  candor  of  the 
advocates  of  ritualism  among, us?  "But  the  preamble  of  the  Report  was 
adopted,"  it  has  been  said,  "and  that  concedes  everything  to  the  Commit- 
tee." It  certainly  was  an  unfortunate  oversight  in  those  who  had  re- 
sisted the  adoption  of  the  original  third  resolution,  to  allow  that  pre^imble, 
with  its  approving  expression,  to  pass.  The  oversight  can  be  accounted 
for,  to  all  candid  minds,  only  on  the  supposition  that  during  the  interval 
of  a  day  and  a  half  which  had  passed  after  the  reading  of  it  (and  if  my 
memory  serves  me,  it  was  not  read  again,  nor  was  a  separate  vote  taken  on 
it),  and  in  consequence  of  the  excitement  of  the  intervening  debate,  and 
the  result  of  that  debate  securing  the  change  contended  for  in  the  third 
resolution,  the  precise  tenor  of  the  preamble  was  overlooked.  If  Dr. 
Nevin  and  his  party  choose  to  take  advantage  of  this  oversight,  they  may. 
Such  artifices  cannot  materially  help  their  cause.  For  it  must  be.  clear 
that,  if  the  opposition  to  the  third  original  resolution  was  so  strong  that 
it  could  secure  the  modification  of  it,  which  they  desired,  that  opposition 
might  have  succeeded  also,  in  having  the  preamble  modified,  had  its  ob- 
jectionable expressions  not  escaped  their  attention. 

In  confirmation  of  this,  another  very  important  fact  must  be  mentioned, 
a  fact  which,  like  the  last  named,  Dr.  Nevin  has  not  thought  proper  to 
quote.  On  p.  98  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  York^  immediately  under 
the  record  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  (which  were  taken  on  the  third  resolu- 
tion of  the  Report,  not  on  the  Jast^  as  the  Minutes  erroneously  say)  the 
following  official  statement  may  be  found  :  '■'■In  the  foregoing  action  of  the 
Spiod,  it  was  understood^  that  the  vote  on  the  adop)tion  of  the  Report^  did 
not  commit  those  loho  voted  for  it,  as  to  the  merits  of  the  looJc."     How 


SPECIAL   POINTS.  33 

came  Dr.  Nevin  to  overlook  that  statement  ?  Why  did  he  not  quote  it  ? 
It  has  a  plain  and  direct  bearing  on  the  case,  and  its  significance  reaches 
back  to  the  first  word  of  the  unfortunate  preamble.  In  words  too  simple 
and  clear  to  be  mistaken,  it  exonerates  even  those  of  the  "miserable  fac- 
tion," who  voted  for  the  amended  Report,  (and  all  of  them  including  my- 
self,— all  but  fourteen^  did  so,)  from  an  endorsement  of  the  work  of  the 
Committee!  One  is  tempted,  in  view  of  such  disingeniousness,  to  stoop, 
after  all,  and,  picking  up  one  of  the  foul  missiles  which  have  been  so  freely 
hurled  at  us,  to  fling  it  back.  But  it  was  resolved,  that  they  should  not 
be  touched.     So  let  them  lie  ! 

The  next  assumption  in  Dr.  Nevin's  method  of  calculating  the  strength 
of  the  ritualistic  party  is  also  swept  away  by  this  statement  in  regard  to 
the  significance  of  the  action  taken  at  York.  The  action  at  Dayton  in- 
volved no  more  than  that  at  York,  hence  the  rule  of  the  reckoning  is  at 
fault  in  this  case  again.  Consequently,  then,  the  smallness  of  the  number 
of  those  Eastern  delegates  who  voted  against  the  Report  adopted  at  Day- 
ton, does  not  fairly  indicate  the  actual  strength  of  the  opposition  to  the 
extreme  liturgical  measures  of  the  Committee,  and  Dr.  Nevin's  "miserable 
faction"  becomes  a  miserable  fiction  of  his  own  agitated  fancy. 

Assuredly,  then^  the  attempt  to  fix  odium  upon  those  opponents,  by  charg- 
ing them  with  factiousness,  is  most  unjust,  and  betrays  a  sad  determina- 
tion to  accomplish  by  personal  abuse  what  might  not  be  achieved  by  un- 
sound argument. 

Passing  on  to  another  special  point,  we  find  the  author  of  the  "  Vindica- 
tion "  betrayed  by  excessive  excitement  into  the  grave  mistake  of  charging 
the  objects  of  his  anger,  with  partizan  manoeuvering  and  intrigue.  Rut 
little  need  be  said,  beyond  a  most  explicit  denial  of  the  charge,  in  answer 
to  this  unfounded  accusation. 

The  right  to  use  all  fair  and  constitutional  methods  to  prevent  the  success 
of  the  innovating  measures  of  Dr.  Neviu  and  his  friends,  will  of  course 
not  be  questioned  by  any  but  those  whose  partizan  zeal  may  lead  them  to 
denounce  all  opposition  to  their  efforts.  Indeed  it  may  be  unhesitatingly 
acknowledged,  that  it  was  not  only  the  right,  but  the  duty  of  those  who 
believed  that  those  efibrts  involved  revolutionary  and  pernicious  changes, 
to  employ  all  lawful  and  equitable  means  of  frustrating  them.  More  than 
this  was  not  done,  and  Dr.  Nevin  is  challenged  toprove  the  contrary.  For 
his  mere  assertions  amount  to  nothing.  And  as  for  the  ungainly  epithets 
and  terms  with  which  he  chooses  to  characterize  the  "  political  game," 
they  amount  to  less  than  nothing,  excepting  as  they  again  serve  to  exhibit 
the  acrimonious  spirit  which  seems  to  have  gained  such  complete  posses- 
sion of  his  mind  and  heart.  What  if  my  former  tract  was  prepared  and 
published  (from  full  notes  written  during  months  before)  in  the  interval 
3 


34:  SPECIAL   POINTS. 

between  the  Synod  of  York  and  the  General  Synod  at  Dayton?  The 
brethren  who  requested  its  publication  had  a  right  to  make  the  request, 
and  I  had  a  right  to  comply.  And  as  to  the  charge  of  its  having  been 
"hastily  written,"  it  may  be  said  that  in  a  proper  sense  that  charge  is 
false;  and,  further,  that  even  if  true,  the  tract  need  not  shrink,  either  in 
regard  to  argument  or  style,  from  a  comparison  with  the  so-called  "  Vindi- 
cation." Of  course  my  tract  was  prepared  for  eflFect.  Its  design  is  undis- 
guised. But  the  design  was  a  just  one,  and  the  effect  it  was  intended  to 
produce  was  one  of  which  all  devoted  to  the  established  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  the  German  lleformed  Church,  to  its  true  historical  character, 
would  approve.  By  the  necessities  of  the  case,  it  could  not  be  published 
long  before  the  meeting  of  the  General  Synod.  And  yet  it  did  make  its 
public  appearance  by  some  days  longer  than  the  Revised  Liturgy  ap- 
peared before  the  Synod  of  York,  which  was  expected  to  act  favourably 
upon  it. 

What  all  in  the  way  of  political  manoeuvering  Dr.  Nevin  intends  to  in- 
clude in  this  charge  is  not  known.  It  may  be  said,  however,  in  a  general 
way,  that  so  far  as  I  know  of,  there  were  no  consultations,  either  in  person 
or  by  letters,  among  the  Eastern  delegates  opposed  to  the  Revised  Liturgy, 
by  which  any  common  course  of  action  was  agreed  upon;  there  were  no 
caucusings  on  the  way  to  Synod,  either  at  Altoona  or  at  Pittsburg,  or  at  any 
other  point,  not  even  in  Dayton;  and  there  were  no  resolutions  of  Classes 
seeking  to  anticipate  and  forestall  free  and  intelligent  action,  by  laying 
their  delegates  under  obligations  to  vote  for  the  Revised  Liturgy  long  be- 
fore it  was  completed  or  published.  If,  therefore,  the  accusation  is  in- 
tended to  charge  the  friends  of  the  established  doctrines  and  usages  of  the 
Church  with  any  such  things,  the  accusation  has  been  laid  at  the  wrong 
door.     Verbum  sat! 

No.  If  but  a  small  moiety  of  the  policy  employed  by  the  advocates  of 
the  innovations  to  secure  their  success  had  been  used  on  the  other  side, 
the  Church  would  probably  not  now  be  in  the  peril  to  which  she  is  ex- 
posed, by  the  manifest  determination  to  make  extreme  use  of  advantages 
conceded  to  them  in  the  way  of  temporary  experiment,  or  of  fraternal,  but 
condition:il  concessions.  As  a  single  proof  and  illustration  of  this,  it  will 
suffice  to  direct  attention  to  one  or  two  facts,  with  reference  to  the 
character  of  most  of  the  eastern  delegations  at  Dayton.  The  ritualistic 
side  was  represented  by  the  President  and  Vice-Pi'esident  of  Franklin  and 
Marshall  College,  by  the  President  of  Marshall  Collegiate  Institute,  by  the 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Seminary  at  Mercersburg,  and  by  the  Editor 
of  the  German  Reformed  Messenger,  all  members  of  the  Old  Liturgical 
Committee,  and  all  carrying  with  them  such  influence  and  power  as  their 
official  position  in  the  Church  may  impart.     Was  this  accidental  ?    Again. 


HISTORICAL    NOTES.  35 

Some  Classes  in  whicli  there  are  many  ministers  who  are  opposed  to  the 
ritualistic  innovations,  possibly  one-half,  or  even  more,  being  of  this  mind, 
were  wholly,  or  almost  wholly,  represented  by  those  who  favor  tlie  new 
Order  of  Worship.  This  may  have  b^en  fortuitous.  But  does  it  look  so  ? 
How,  then,  came  the  author  of  the  "Vindication"  to  take  no  note  of  these 
significant  facts,  especially  as  he  did  allow  his  thoughts  to  be  occupied  with 
such  "political"  aspects  of  the  "game?" 

So  far  from  its  being  true  that  those  who  opposed  the  innovations  had 
any  advantages  by  manceuvering,  the  real  aspects  of  the  case  strongly 
indicated  that  such  advantages  had  been  adroitly  secured  by  the  other 
side.  For  reasons,  best  known  to  themselves,  some  of  those  who  may  be 
supposed  to  have  possessed  the  secrets  of  their  part,  boasted  most  con- 
fidently of  their  expected  success  at  Dayton,  a  success,  however,  which  it 
was  predicted  would  be  far  more  overwhelmingly  complete  than  it  finally 
proved  to  be.  So  that  whatever  Dr.  Nevin's  fears  may  have  been,  they 
did  not  seem  to  be  shared  at  all  by  the  friends  of  his  measures.  And 
now,  on  calmly  reviewing  the  case,  in  this  "political"  aspect,  it  seems 
surprising,  that  with  all  the  power  of  influential  position  in  the  Church,  (a 
power  which  those  now  denounced  as  "factious,"  "  dupes,"  and  "  ciphers," 
had  helped  to  create,  at  a  time  when  those  who  wield  it  seemed  devoted 
to  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  its  true  historical  character),  and  with 
all  the  use  or  abuse  of  that  power  in  the  manner  displayed  at  Dayton, 
that  the  revolutionary  movement  should  have  but  barely  escaped  an  utter 
defeat. 

Let  this  suf&ce,  so  far  as  concerns  a  few  of  the  odious  personalities  of 
the  notable  tract  before  us.  Our  way  has  now  been  cleared  of  the  rubbish 
of  those  irrelevant  points  with  which  the  author  has  labored  in  his  extrem- 
ity to  embarrass  the  calm  consideration  of  the  vital  questions  involved  in 
the  present  controversy,  and  to  rescue  his  cherished  scheme  from  peril. 
We  are  prepared,  therefore,  to  examine  again,  in  a  summary  way,  the 
leading  facts  connected  with  the  liutory  of  the  neia  Order  of  Worship,  and 
to  ascertain  through  them  by  what  means  the  ritualistic  crisis,  with  all  the 
dangerous  innovations  it  involves,  has  been  brought  upon  the  Church. 

HISTORICAL  NOTES. 
The  great  importance  of  the  historical  argument  seems  to  have  been 
fully  appreciated  by  Dr.  Nevin.  It  is  evident,  also,  from  his  violent 
struggles  to  escape  the  grasp  of  historical  proofs  demonstrating  that  the 
new  Order  of  Worship  was  not  such  a  Liturgy  as  the  Synod  had  directed 
the  committee  to  prepare,  how  fully  he  realized  the  force  of  those  proofs. 
His  manner  of  disposing  of  them  is  most  remarkable  for  a  writer  of  his 
pretensions,  and  displays  far  more  skill  in  the  art  of  Heshiissian  logic 


36  HISTORICAL    NOTES. 

than  genuine  candor.  He  deals  witli  the  official  records  of  the  Synod,  in 
the  historical  section  of  his  tract,  as  he  deals  with  the  Creed  in  the  subse- 
quent part.  Into  both  he  arbitrarily  inserts  a  sense  to  suit  his  purpose  or 
his  theory,  and  then  becomes  so  entirely  the  victim  of  his  own  artifice,  that 
he  seems  actually  to  believe  that  sense  the  true  one,  and  violently  denounces 
every  other  as  absurd  and  false.  Resolutions  of  Synod,  most  literally  and 
essentially  contradictory  of  his  views,  as  well  as  positive  and  plain  defini- 
tions of  the  Catechism,  and  expositions  of  the  authors  of  the  Catechism 
directly  antagonistic  to  his  fourth  century  conceits  revived,  or  rather 
perhaps  adopted  from  others  who  have  revived  them,  are  all  but  so  many 
flimsy  cobwebs  before  the  besom  in  this  arbitrary  historian's  hand.  The 
wilful  course  pursued  docs  indeed  involve  the  writer  more  than  once  in 
most  glaring  and  ridiculous  contradictions.  But  who  shall  dare  to  chal- 
len"-e  such  a  theologian's  contradictions,  or  to  expose  the  absurd  conse- 
quences to  which  they  lead  ?  What  if  he  does  denounce  the  accusation 
of  disobedience  to  Synodical  instructions  as  a  slander,  and  then  forthwith 
acknowledge  the  fact  of  the  disobedience  ?  What  if  he  does  inveigh 
most  violently  against  the  charge  that  the  Committee  did  not  abide  by  the 
obligations  assumed  in  the  Baltimore  compact,  or  treat  it  with  sarcastic 
ridicule,  and  then  tacitly  admit  that  the  terms  of  that  compact  were  not 
honored  ?  What  if  he  does  incase  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  a  gilded 
casket  of  eloquent  laudations,  and  wreathe  garlands  of  flowery  compli- 
ments for  the  brows  of  Ursinus,  and  Olevianus,  and  Frederick  III,  "  of 
noble,  pious  memory,"  and  then  modify  the  lofty  commendations  by  cooly 
ponouncing  them  "rationalistic,"  by  condemning  their  Liturgy  as  '^  pseudo- 
liturgical  at  best,"  "■  a  hortus  siccus,"  (i.  e.,  a  garden  of  dead  grass),  and  by 
perverting  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  their  Catechism  into  errors 
a"-ainst  which  that  noble  and  sacred  testimony  of  their  faith  was  lifted  boldly 
up?  Self-contradictions,  like  these,  would  be  perpetrated  by  other  men  to 
the  certain  ruin  of  any  scholarly  reputation  they  might  enjoy.  But  Dr. 
Nevin  indulges  in  them  so  freely,  so  confidently,  that  he  seems  to  feel  as- 
sured, from  what  guarantees  it  would  be  hard  to  say,  that  all  will  be  received 
not  only  with  submissive  acquiescence,  but  with  loud,  partizan  applause. 

And  yet  in  this,  as  in  some  other  things,  he  may  be  mistaken.  Men  are 
learning  to  read  both  history  and  theology  for  themselves,  and  to  exercise 
their  own  honest,  intelligent  judgment  regarding  their  testimony  and  teach- 
ings. The  Church  has  begun  to  see,  that  not  every  utterance  or  ukase  issuing 
from  this  dictatorial  source,  is  in  harmony  with  actual  facts,  or  in  accordance 
with  actual  truth.  There  may  be  no  disposition  to  doubt  the  integrity  of 
those  who  make  the  declarations.  No  one  may  call  in  question  that  they 
believe  what  they  say.  But  their  liability  to  change  and  error  has  been 
too  often  demonstrated  to  give  their  mere  unproved  assertions  the  autho- 


HISTORICAL    NOTES.  37 

rity  of  law.  No  stronger  evidence  of  this  could  be  needed  than  is  fur- 
nished by  the  history  of  the  Liturgical  movement  to  the  completion  and 
report  of  the  new  Order  of  Worship. 

That  movement  passed  through  three  distinctly  marked  periods.  The 
first  began  with  the..iSynod  of  Lancaster,  in  1847,  and  extended  to  the 
Synod  of  Baltimore,  in  1852,  including  the  important  action  of  the  Synod 
of  Norristown  upon  the  subject.  During  this  period  the  ruling  purpose 
was,  as  expressed  in  the  most  distinct  and  unequivocal  language  adopted 
as  an  explicit  declaration  of  the  Synod's  judgment,  that  the  Liturgy  con- 
templated should  contain  such  "forms  as  were  recognized  by  our  fathers," 
and  that  it  should  be  strictly  modelled  "after  the  old  Palatinate  Liturgy  as 
our  true  ideal."  The  second  period  began  with  the  consent  given  by  the 
Synod  of  Baltimore,  in  1852,  to  the  Committee's  proposition  to  construct 
the  proposed  Liturgy  upon  a  broader  basis  than  that  which  had  been  ori- 
ginally adopted.  This  change  of  basis  allowed  of  certain  important  modi- 
fications of  the  plan  upon  which  the  work  had  been  begun.  And  yet 
those  modifications  were  of  such  a  character,  and  were  so  carefully  guarded 
by  special  explanations,  that  a  Liturgy  might  be  prepared  in  accordance 
with  them,  which  would  involve  no  material  or  essential  departure  from 
established  Reformed  principles  of  worship.  The  Provisional  Liturgy  was, 
in  the  main,  such  a  book.  And  yet  the  Synod  of  Allentown,  at  which  it 
was  received,  did  not  endorse  it,  much  less  adopt  it,  but  simply  allowed  it 
to  go  forth  on  trial,  as  an  experiment.  Even  the  Committee  had  so  lively 
a  sense  of  the  responsibility  of  proposing  the  work,  though  framed  strictly, 
as  Dr.  Nevin  afiirms,  according  to  instructions  given,  that  they  asked  for 
no  more  than  this,  and  had  misgivings  even  in  asking  this.  Why  these 
misgivings?  To  what  did  this  cautious  legislation  refer?  Manifestly  to 
those  peculiarities  in  a  few  of  the  services  of  the  book,  which  contemplated 
some  change  in  the  cultus  and  worship  of  the  Church.  Thus  far,  then, 
the  Committee  and  the  Synod  seemed  to  agree  upon  the  necessity  of  ad- 
hering predominantly  to  the  established  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church 
in  a  genuine  sixteenth  century  sense.  Dr.  Nevin  regarded  it  as  a  matter 
of  formal  congratulation,  that  the  work  would  '^be  found  in  harmony  with 
the  theological  life  and  genius  of  the  Church,  for  whose  aiore  particular 
use  it  had  been  prepared."  (See  Report  of  the  Committee  to  the  Synod 
of  Allentown,  Minutes,  p.  81.)  Not  a  word  was  then  breathed  of  its  '^not 
pretending  at  all  to  be  of  one  order  with  the  liturgical  practice  of  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church;"  not  an  intimation  was  then  given,  that  the  prac- 
tice of  the  German  Reformed  Church  was  "from  the  beginning  believed 
to  have  been  too  naked  and  bald."  Assertions  like  these  were  reserved 
for  five  years  later. 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  movement  entered  the  third  period  of  its  pro- 


38  HISTORICAL    NOTES. 

gress  and  development.  This  ^yas.  the  period  of  the  Revision.  Most 
earnestly  was  the  immediate  revision  opposed  by  those  who  now  advocate 
and  urge  the  adoption  of  the  new  measures.  The  only  probable,  and  partly 
avowed  reasons  for  this  opposition,  have  been  given  on  a  previous  page. 
It  did  not  avail,  however.  The  Re\nsion  was  ordered.  The  principles  on 
which  it  was  to  be  made  were  explicitly  stated.  They  were  those  of  the 
Baltimore  basis.  Dr.  Nevin  himself  acknowledges  this.  Moreover,  in 
connection  with  these  principles,  the  Committee  was  directed  to  have  re- 
gard to  the  suggestions  made  by  several  Classes,  in  regard  to  certain 
changes  and  modifications  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy.  Of  these,  the 
Classes  of  Mercersburg  and  of  Lancaster,  in  whose  midst,  Drs.  Nevin, 
Schaif,  Wolff,  Ilarbaugh  and  Gerhart,  all  members  of  the  Liturgical  Com- 
mittee, resided,  declared  with  special  emphasis  their  desire  that  such  mo- 
difications should  be  made.  As  an  additional  guide  in  the  prosecution  of 
their  work,  the  Committee  had  before  it  the  very  significant  fact,  that  the 
novel  peculiarities  of  that  Liturgy  had  been  almost  universally  repudiated 
by  the  Church.  With  all  the  influence  of  Professors  and  the  schools  in 
their  favor,  with  all  the  strong  desires  of  marfy  worthy  pastors  who  had 
been  sedulcus'y  taught  to  admire  those  peculiarities  to  introduce  them,  and 
with  all  the  careful  and  quiet  efforts  made  by  a  few  zealous  friends  to  in- 
troduce them  "without  observation,"  they  had  signally  failed  to  prove  ac- 
ceptable. The  book  was  largely  used  as  a  pastor's  hand-book,  and  very 
much  that  it  contained  in  this  form  was  admired.  But  beyond  this,  it 
met  with  but  exceedingly  limited  favor.  All  this  the  Committee  knew 
when  the  work  of  revision  was  commenced,  and  whilst  that  work  was  being 
prosecuted.  And  from  all  this  it  should  have  been  easy  for  them  to  de- 
termine upon  the  course  to  be  pursued,  if  they  desired  to  conform  their 
work  to  the  plain  instructions  of  Synod,  to  the  expressed  wishes  of  the 
Classes,  and  to  the  obvious  desires  of  the  Church  at  large.  It  may  be  un- 
hesitatingly affirmed,  also,  that  it  v/as  the  general  expectation  and  hope, 
even  of  most  of  those  brethren  in  the  ministry  who  may  have  theoretically 
agreed  with  the  majority  of  the  Committee  in  their  peculiar  views,  that 
due  regard  would  be  paid  to  these  facts,  and  that  material  modifications 
would  be  made,  both  in  the  form  and  doctrinal  expressions  of  the  more 
ritualistic  services  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy. 

To  all  this,  however,  little  or  no  regard  was  paid,  as  may  clearly  be  seen 
by  simply  holding  these  rules  for  the  revision  in  one  hand,  and  comparing 
with  them  the  Order  of  Worship  as  submitted  to  the  Synods  of  York  and 
Dayton.  It  requires  no  profound  learning;  nothing  but  that  plain  good 
sense  which  every  lay  member  of  the  Church  possesses,  to  see  that  the  two 
things  do  not  tally,  but  are  in  material  and  essential  disagreement.  To 
exhibit  this  diversity  distinctly  to  the  reader's  view,  the  points  of  flagrant 
disagi cement  are  here  placed  in  parallel  columns. 


HISTORICAL   NOTES. 


39 


THE    INSTRUCTIONS  OF    SYNOD  DIRECTED: 

1.  That  tlie  Revised  Liturgy  should  be 
framed  after  the  pattern  of  the  worship 
of  "  the  Primilive  Church,  as  far  as  this 
can  be  ascertained  from  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, the  oldest  ecclesiastical  writers, 
and  the  Liturgies  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Churches  of  the  3d  and  4th  cen- 
turies." 

2.  Synod  required  that  "among  later 
Liturgies,  special  reference  ought  to  be 
had  to  the  Old  Palatinate  and  other  Re- 
formed Liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury." 

3.  The  Committee  was  directed  to 
provide  "several  forms  for  those  por- 
tions of  the  Liturgy  which  are  most  fre- 
quently used,  as  the  regular  service  of 
the  Lord's  Day,  and  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  some  shorter  and 
some  longer,  some  with  and  some  with- 
out responses." 

4.  It  was  most  explicitly  enjoined 
that  the  new  Liturgy  should  recognize 
and  encourage  the  use  of  ^^  extempora- 
neous prayer, ^^  nay,  that  it  should  seek  to 
promote  the  exercise  of  the  gift,  by 
leaving  sufficient  room  for  it  in  the  se- 
veral services. 

5.  The  Synod  of  Easton  reiterated 
substantially  the  directions  of  the  Balti- 
more basis,  laying  very  special  stress 
upon  the  necessity  of  so  prosecuting  the 
revision,  that  the  proposed  Liturgy 
should  not  be  "  inconsistent  with  cs^a- 
blished  Liturgical  principles  and  usages, 
or  with  the  devotional  and  doctrinal  genius 
of  the  German  Reformed  Churchy  It  was 
further  ordered  that  due  consideration 
should  be  given  to  the  suggestions  of 
the  several  Classes,  calling  for  fewer 
responses,  and  for  a  modification  of  cer- 
tain doctrinal  expressions  in  the  sacra- 
mental and  some  other  services. 


THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  CONTRARY: 

1.  Made  the  Liturgies  of  the  Latin 
and  Greek  Churches  of  the  3d  and  4th 
centuries  their  ruling  pattern,  although 
it  is  universally  known  that  the  worship 
of  the  Primitive  Church  had  then  become 
materially  modified  and  seriously  cor- 
rupted. 

2.  In  the  Revised  Liturgy  scarcely  a 
single  trace  of  such  'reference  can  be 
found,  excepting  in  the  case  of  some  co- 
incidence of  those  Reformed  Liturgies 
with  3d  and  4th  century  services. 

3.  The  Revised  Liturgy  or  new  Order  / 
of  Worship,  shows  that  this  direction 
Avas  utterly  disregarded  by  the  Commit- 
tee. It  contains  but  one  form  for  each 
of  the  services  named,  and  that  in  the 
fullest  sense  responsive.  The  service 
for  the  Lord's  Supper,  also  differs  to- 
tally from  anj'  known  in  the  German 
Reformed  Church,  and  much  more  close- 
ly resembles  the  Romish  mass. 

4.  The  new  Order  of  Worship  ignores  "' 
free  prayer,  evidently  discourages  its 
use,  and  contemplates  its  ultimate,  to- 
tal exclusion.  Its  reigning  spirit  is  es- 
sentially incompatible  with  extempora- 
neous prayer. 

5.  The  new  Order  of  Worship  shows  ,' 
that  instead  of  following  these  reiterated 
directions,  the  Committee  steadily  per- 
sisted in  carrying  out  their  own  views, 
interpreting  instructions  given  to  suit 
those  views,  or  wholly  disregarding  the 
instructions.  There  is  no  diminution 
of  the  number  of  responses,  but  an  in- 
crease of  them,  and  a  multiplication  of 
services  containing  them,  to  the  entire 
exclusion  of  the  many  non-responsive 
forms  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy.  There 
is  no  real  modificaiion  of  objectionable 
doctrinal  expressions.  And  the  book  is 
flagrantly  at  variance  with  the  esta- 
blished Liturgical  principles,  and  with 
the  devotional  and  doctrinal  genius  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church. 


40  HISTORICAL    NOTES. 

It  will  serve  to  increase  the  real  significance  of  these  strong  contrasts 
between  what  the  Synod  directed  the  Committeee  to  do,  and  what  has 
actually  been  done,  if  another  fact  is  remembered.  The  Synod  and  the 
Church  liad  every  reason  to  expect  that  the  Liturgy  in  the  course  of 
preparation,  would  in  all  material  and  essential  respects,  be  truly  and 
genuinely  a  German  Reformed  Liturgy.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
thoughts  or  desires  of  a  few  individuals  here  and  there,  who  held  doctrinal 
and  ritualistic  views  at  variance  with  established  historical  Reformed 
standards  and  principles,  there  is  not  the  least  doubt  that  the  general  ex- 
pectation of  those  ministers  and  lay  members  of  the  Church  who  paid  any 
attention  to  the  movement,  was,  that  the  Committee  would  prepare  and 
report  a  book  which  would  be  found  in  full  substantial  harmony  with  the 
instructions  given,  and  therefore  with  the  prevailing  faith  and  practice  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church.  There  was  every  reason  for  cherishing 
such  an  expectation.  No  intimation  had  ever  been  given  by  the  Synod,  of  a 
purpose  or  wish  radically  to  change  the  old  cultus  of  the  Church,  or  ma- 
terially to  modify  any  of  her  fundamental  doctrines.  She  was  not  known, 
or  suspected  even,  to  be  dissatisfied  with  her  peculiar  denominational 
characteristics.  More  than  once,  indeed,  in  years  past,  when  assertions 
or  intimations  were  made  which  seemed  to  charge  the  Synod  with  coun- 
tenancing doctrines  or  tendencies  which  involved  revolutionary  results, 
those  who  made  them  were  denounced  as  false  witnesses,  and  declared  to 
be  enemies  of  the  Church.  Can  it  be  forgotten,  that  it  was  then  boldly 
and  unqualifiedly  affirmed,  that  nineteenth-twentieths  of  the  Church  re- 
pudiated the  doubtful  things  of  the  peculiar  views,  as  an  argument  sufiicient 
to  silence  the  tongues  of  those  who  were  said  to  be  defaming  us  ? 

Furthermore,  the  Committee  was  composed  largely  of  members  whose 
official  position  in  the  Church  laid  them  under  special  obligations  of  strict 
fidelity  to  her  traditional  genius  and  spirit.  There  was  good  ground  to 
suppose,  therefore,  that  of  all  her  ministers,  the}^  would  be  most  zealous  in 
their  eiForts  to  maintain  and  defend  the  integrity  of  all  her  doctrines  and 
legitimate  usages,  and  that  they  would  be  the  last  to  propose  or  advocate 
any  material  or  essential  modification  of  either.  Even  the  memorable  re- 
port of  1862  ("The  Liturgical  question"),  with  all  its  strange  pleadings, 
could  hardly  have  then  been  taken  by  the  Synod  of  Chambersburg,  to 
mean  what  it  is  now  seen  to  have  meant.  Notwithstanding  its  very  extreme 
positions  and  offensive  statements,  the  belief  was  still  cherished,  that  the 
Committee  would  not,  could  not  carry  out  the  principles  advocated  in 
that  report,  to  such  an  extreme  degree  as  is  exhibited  in  the  new  Order 
of  Worship.  Excepting,  perhaps,  a  few  more  intimate  and  zealous  disci- 
ples of  the  radical  movement,  or  a  few  opponents  of  that  mo"V5ement,  who 
were  regarded  as  false  alarmists,  who  dreamed  that  the  Committee  really 


HISTORICAL    NOTES.  41 

intended  to  produce  a  book  -wliicli  would  be  so  utterly  at  variauce  witli 
some  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  tlie  past  faith,  and  practice,  of  the 
Church? 

These  are  not  fictions^  or  even  facts  founded  on  fictions.  They  are 
matters  of  ofiicial  explicit  record,  and  of  actual  occurrence.  Their  author- 
ity, therefore,  in  the  case  before  us  is  indisputable  and  final.  If  the  pur- 
pose and  the  desires  of  the  Synod  are  not  to  be  mainly  ascertained  from 
resolutions  adopted,  and  from  instructions  given,  to  what  source  can  we 
look  for  positive  and  certain  information?  Is  it  not  obvious  and  just, 
that  whatever  else  may  have  been  done  or  not  done,  said,  or  simply  ac- 
quiesced in,  must  be  interpreted  in  conformity  with  such  resolutions,  and 
such  instructions!  The  Committee,  therefore,  has  no  right  to  go  back  of 
the  actual  record  to  find  a  sense  to  justify  their  course,  at  variance  with 
the  plain  import  of  the  record  itself. 

From  this  historical  review  two  things  are  evident :  1.  That  the  Synod  and 
Church  at  large  never  contemplated  or  desired  the  preparation  or  introduc- 
tion of  any  other  system  of  worship  but  one  which  would  be  in  full  un- 
doubted harmony  "with  the  devotional  and  doctrinal  genius  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church,"  and  gave  no  authority  for  the  preparation  of  any  other. 
2.  That  at  least  during  fifteen  years  of  their  labors,  down  to  the  Synod  of 
Chambersburg  in  18G2,  the  Committee  professed  and  seemed  to  be  pros- 
ecuting their  liturgical  labors  in  full  accordance  with  the  expressed  wishes 
and  purpose  of  the  Synod.  Some  things,  indeed,  were  said  and  done, 
which  foreshadowed  evil,  and  excited  apprehensions  in  the  hearts  of  those 
who  saw  in  them  indications  of  a  purpose  to  make  the  liturgical  movement 
a  means  of  introducing  serious  changes  in  the  "  devotional  and  doctrinal 
genius"  of  our  Church.  But  all  intimations  of  the  existence  of  such  a 
purpose  were  silenced  for  the  time  by  ridicule  or  indignant  disclaimers, 
and  all  the  fears  expressed  were  pronounced  preposterous.  Why  should 
the  work  be  condemned  before  it  was  done?  How  unjust,  it  was  said,  to 
create  suspicions  against  the  book,  by  such  unfair  charges,  before  it  was 
completed  and  could  be  carefully  and  calmly  examined  in  all  its  parts  ? 
Why  excite  doubts  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  Committee  faithfully  to  per- 
form the  work  intrusted  to  them  according  to  instructions  given,  and  given 
largely  in  compliance  with  their  own  suggestions  and  recommendations? 

Meanwhile  that  work  was  actually  progressing  with  steady,  unyielding 
determination,  according  to  the  principles  and  plan  now  fully  developed 
in  the  new  Order  of  Worship.  Meanwhile,  also,  influences  and  agencies 
were  zealously  employed  to  prepare  the  Synod  and  the  Church,  if  possible, 
for  a  favorable  reception  of  the  work  which  was  thus  performed. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  such  facts  as  these,  that  the  true  character  of  the 
course  pursued  by  the  Committee  becomes  apparent.     The  "  Vindication  " 


42  HISTORICAL    NOTES. 

may  defend  or  extenuate  that  course  as  it  pleases,  all  will  not  avail  to  ex- 
culpate the  Committee  from  the  charge  of  disobedience  to  express  Synod- 
ical  instructions.  The  Synod  ordered  a  certain  work  to  be  done  in  a  cer- 
tain way.  The  Committee  did  the  work  in  quite  another  way,  and  in  a 
way  "materially  and  essentially"  diflFerent  from  that  prescribed.  Dr. 
Nevin  may  call  this  what  he  likes.  I  know  of  but  one  name  for  it,  and 
that  is  disobedience  to  instructions.  The  endurance  by  Synod  of  such 
disobedience,  its  patience  and  forbearance  towards  it,  its  occasional  seem- 
ing tacit  concessions,  may  be  capable  of  explanation  or  not.  All  this  does 
not  change  the  real  aspect  of  the  case,  any  more  than  a  parent's  leniency 
towards  a  disobedient  child,  changes  the  fact  of  its  disobedience.  Absa- 
lom was  none  the  less  blamable  for  all  David's  pliancy.  The  Revised 
Liturgy  is  "  essentially  and  materially"  a  different  Order  of  Worship  from 
that  contemplated  and  called  for  by  the  actions  of  the  Synod  under  whose 
direction  it  was  to  be  prepared,  and  is  so  because  those  actions  were  dis- 
regarded. And  now,  as  a  consequence  of  this  course  of  the  Committee, 
we  are  shut  up  to  the  dilemma,  either  of  contending  earnestly  for  the 
maintenance  and  defence  of  our  long  established  faith  and  practice, 
against  radical  and  subversive  innovations,  or,  of  timely  and  recreantly 
surrendering  evangelical  denominational  principles,  to  the  sweeping  de- 
mands of  ultra-high-church  sacramentalism. 

Such,  then,  is  the  theory  of  the  course  of  the  Committee  and  of  the  way 
in  which  the  Liturgical  movement  was  carried  forward  to  the  present  pos- 
ture of  things,  which  is  furnished  by  a  careful  and  candid  consideration  of 
the  history  of  the  movement.  And  this  review  of  the  case  with  its  ob- 
vious lessons  and  inferences,  is  the  only  reply  I  will  make  to  the  distorted 
caricature  drawn  by  the  author  of  the  "Vindication  "  on  pp.  11-13  of  his 
tract. 

But  what,  now,  on  the  other  hand,  is  Dr.  Nevin's  account  of  the  mat- 
ter ?  How  does  he  explain  the  fact,  that  while  the  Liturgical  movement 
began  with  most  distinctly  avowed  purposes  of  a  faithful  adherence  to 
Grernaan  Reformed  principles  and  usages,  it  ended  with  the  presentation 
of  a  system,  devotional  and  impliedly  doctrinal,  too,  subversive  of  that 
system?  How  does  he  attempt  to  justify  the  course  of  the  Committee  in 
avowedly  prosecuting  its  work  according  to  instructions  given,  and  yet  in 
the  end  producing  a  book  for  which  it  is  not  claimed  even,  that  it  is  in 
real  harmony  with  those  instructions?     Let  us  see. 

1.  He  begins  with  an  unreserved  repudiation  of  those  instructions,  so 
far  as  their  details  are  concerned.  "Let  no  one  imagine,  however,  that  I 
propose  to  follow  him  in  the  details  of  his  pretended  historical  argument. 
That  would  be,  indeed,  both  time  and  labor  thrown  away"  (p.  10).  No, 
truly.     It  would  have  taken   a  great  deal  more  time,  and  a  vastly  larger 


HISTORICAL   NOTES.  43 

amouat  of  labor,  thaa  Dr.  Xeviu  could  well  spare  from  his  maia  purpose, 
to  have  doae  this.  Oaly  "imagine"  that  he  had  attempted  to  follow 
"  the  details  of  that  historical  argument."  Those  "details"  were  a  literal 
citation  of  the  acts  and  resolutions  of  Synod,  setting  forth,  as  has  been 
shown,  in  distinct  and  unequivocal  terms,  what  the  Committee  was  directed 
to  do  in  the  preparation  of  the  work  on  hand.  The  original  plan  and 
principles  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  Norristown,.  need  not  be  pressed. 
Allow  them  to  have  been  superseded  by  the  basis  to  which  the  Synod  of 
Baltimore  assented  by  way  of  expeiiment  iu  1852.  Only  suppose  our 
author  endeavoring  to  show  that  the  Committee  had  faithfully  and 
strictly  adhered  to  the  principles  of  that  basis,  and  that  his  new  Order  of 
Worship  was  in  full  essential  harmony  with  it.  He  would  have  found 
himself  called  upon  to  solve  some  exceedingly  vexatious  problems,  and  to 
answer  some  very  impertinent,  annoying  questions.  Possibly,  from  some 
vagueness  in  the  phrase,  "worship  of  the  Primitive  Church/'  employed 
in  the  first  principle  of  that  basis,  the  flagrant  disagreement  of  the  leading 
forms  of  the  new  system  with  the  spirit  and  genius  of  any  mode  of  wor- 
ship known  to  Apostolic  and  strictly  primitive  times  (i.  e.  during  the  first 
century  of  the  Christian  era),  might  have  been  plausibly  and  dexterously 
defended.  Possibly  it  might  have  been  shown,  to  the -satisfaction  at  least 
of  those  who  may  be  somewhat  captivated  by  the  innovations^  or  tempted 
to  favor  them  without  fully  perceiving  or  considering  what  all  they  involve 
in  the  way  of  surrendering  fundamental  principles  of  evangelical  Chris- 
tianity, thatthe  term  "primitive"  covered  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  and 
permitted  the  Committee  not  simply  to  ascertain  as  well  as  they  might 
through  "the  Latin  and  Greek  Liturgies,"  of  those  centuries  such  elements 
of  primitive  worship  as  might  be  culled  from  them,  but  to  adopt,  in  large 
measure,  the  peculiarities  of  those  later  Liturgies.  Difiicult  as  it  would  be 
to  prove  all  this,  and  greatly  as  the  difl5culty  might,  if  possible,  increase 
his  mournful  irascibility  at  being  balked  at  all  in  his  "Vindication"  by  so 
paltry  and  contemptible  a  matter  as  this, — suppose  he  be  relieved  by  con- 
ceding what  it  might  be  so  troublesome  to  make  out,  iu  regard  to  this 
point. 

But  what  would  he  do  with  the  second  principle  of  the  Baltimore  basis? 
It  requires,  as  has  been  seen,  that  "  sjjecial  reference  ought  to  he  had  to 
the  old  Palatinate  and  other  Reformed  Liturgies  of  the  l%th  century." 
Now,  only  ^'imagine"  Dr.  Nevin  writing  a  true  historical  "Vindication" 
of  the  Committee's  new  "Order  of  Worship,"  grappling  with  this  law  for 
the  preparation  of  the  work.  "Luagine"  the  author  of  the  "Liturgical 
question,"  and  of  all  its  calumnies  upon  such  "pseudo-liturgical"  "pulpit 
hand-books"  as  the  venerated  fathers  of  our  Church  prepared,  recom- 
mended, and  used,  endeavoring  to  show  how  much  earnest  and  respectful 


44  HISTORICxVL   NOTES. 

reference  had  been  made  by  him,  for  instance,  to  those  early  Reformed 
Liturgies,  and  how  largely  their  scheme  of  worship,  forms  and  prayers, 
were  used  in  the  preparation  of  the  new  ''Order."  Imagine  him  striving 
to  show  how  fully  the  forms  of  that  ''Order"  for  the  regular  service  of  the 
Lord's  day,  for  preparation  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  for  the  Lord's 
Supper  itself,  harmonized  in  their  "devotional  and  doctrinal  genius,"  with 
the  forms  of  the  Palatinate  or  any  other  old  German  Reformed  Liturgy  for 
those  same  services.  Imagine  him  attempting  to  demonstrate  by  an  actual 
comparison  of  their  general  structure  (I  do  not  say  details,  for  Dr.  Nevin 
dislikes  "details"),  how  cordially  they  harmonize^  and  how  beautifully 
they  ageeed. 

Or  suppose,  once  more,  we  picture  to  our  mind  this  same  author, 
endeavoring  to  prove  the  agreement  of  the  "Order,"  in  all  essential  re- 
spects with  the  third  principle  and  t\\%  fourth  of  that  same  basis.  Those 
principles  require  provision  for  nou-responsive  forms  for  all  the  leading 
services,  and  for  free  prayer.  Any  "  Vindication,"  worthy  of  the  name,  of 
the  Committee's  work,  must  show,  therefore,  that  this  law  again  has  been 
faithfully  obeyed;  that  the  new  "Order"  complies  with  its  demands. 
Now  let  us  see  how  astutely,  how  triumphantly  the  obedience  called  for, 
can  be  shown  to  have  been  rendered.  Where  will  he  begin?  Where 
will  he  end  in  the  demonstration?  He  takes  up  the  new  "Order."  He 
searches  for  the  non-responsive  forms  required.  He  seeks  for  some  such 
recognition  of  free  prayer  as  is  called  for,  and  as  may  be  found  repeatedly 
in  the  Provisional  Liturgy  of  1857, — that  book  which  he  most  earnestly 
contended  was  a  unit  of  perfectly  harmonious  parts.  Can  he  find,  what 
yet  must  be  there,  if  the  book  shall  be  fairly  vindicated,  against  the  charge 
of  not  being  such  a  Liturgy  as  the  Synod  ordered  the  Committee  to  pre- 
pare, and  as  the  Committee  has  a  right  to  ask  the  Church  to  adopt?  No, 
it  is  not  to  be  found.  What!  not  a  single  instance?  No,  not  one. 
These  two  principles  were  utterly  ignored,  boldly  discarded  in  the  actual 
production  of  the  new  "  Order."  They  were  incompatible  with  the  prin- 
ciples and  system  of  doctrine  and  worship  which  had  come  to  prevail  in 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  through  the  influence  of  such  ultra  sacer- 
dotal prelatists  as  Dr.  Nevin's  great  model  Cyjyrian  (see  "Dr.  Nevin  and 
his  Antagonist,"  by  J.  H.  A.  Bomberger;  "  Mercersburg  Review,"  Vol. 
v.,  1853,  pp.  177-8). 

What  a  dilemma!  A  vaunted  defence  of  an  "Order  of  Worship,"  sup- 
posed in  the  course  of  ^preparation  to  be  proceeding  according  to  principles 
laid  down  by  the  Committee  itself,  and  demanding  adoption  unless  the 
Sjnod  would  stultify  itself,  while  that  defence  dare  not  bring  the  work  to 
the  test  of  those  very  principles !  A  defence  professedly  based  upon  his- 
torical evidence,  and  yet  shrinking  from  a  fair  application  of  that  evidence 


HISTORICAL   NOTES.  45 

as  derivable  only  from  authentic  official  records !  No  wonder  Dr.  Nevin 
lost  patience  with  those  "details" — those  insolent,  audacious  details, 
which  from  the  calm  pages  of  that  obnoxious  tract,  dared  to  confront  him 
with  their  quiet  but  irresistible  reproof.  The  testimony  which  they  bore 
against  a  course  which  had  issued  in  the  Revise^  Liturgy,  plainly,  unqua- 
lifiedly condemned  that  course,  and  the  pernicious  issue.  And  there  was 
no  way  of  escaping  the  fores  of  the  testimony,  but  by  obliterating  it.  This 
was  the  easiest  method  of  disposing  of  the  oflfensive  thing.  Set  the  details 
aside.  Or  let  them  be  shorn  of  their  force  by  ridiculing,  caricaturing 
them.  If  they  cannot  be  met  and  answered,  they  may  be  laughed  at,  and 
their  testimony  may  be  drowned  by  the  noise  of  sarcastic  derision. 

But  by  what  right,  it  may  well  be  asked,  does  Dr.  Nevin  affect  so  sum- 
marily to  dispose  of  what  bears  against  his  cause?  On  what  authority 
does  he  so  arbitrarily  rule  out  the  only  reliable  and  official  source  of  proof 
in  the  case?  Other  Committees  or  members  of  the  Synod  have  never 
presumed  to  claim  or  to  exercise  such  liberties.  When  certain  duties 
were  assigned  to  them,  they  were  expected  to  perform  those  duties  as  far 
as  possible  in  accordance  with  the  spirit,  at  least,  if  not  the  letter  of  their 
instructions.  And  they  would  have  been  deemed  deserving  of  censure 
had  they  pursued  a  contrary  course.  Why  then  should  a  matter  of  such 
vital  moment  as  the  preparation  of  a  Liturgy,  and  in  reference  to  which 
there  has  been  so  much  explicit  ecclesiastical  legislation,  be  allowed  to 
form  an  exception?  Why  should  Dr.  Nevin  be  permitted  to  claim 
exemption  from  faithful  compliance  with  Synodical  instructions,  and  to 
scatter  them  as  chaff,  by  tempest  of  his  displeasure? 

2.  Thus  rid  of  the  annoyance  of  those  historical  details,  the  author  of 
the  '' Vindication"  proceeds  to  construct  his  defensive  argument  upon 
quite  another  basis.  This  is  not  done,  indeed,  in  any  direct,  frank,  and 
comprehensive  way,  by  which  the  reader  might  see  at  a  glance  the  facts 
or  assumptions  on  which  the  theory  rests,  and  of  which  it  is  made  up. 
If  the  theory  was  sound,  and  in  harmony  with  the  record,  it  would,  or 
should  have  b'een  as  easy  for  the  author  to  put  its  parts  together  in  a 
summary  way,  as  it  was  for  him  to  manufacture  the  caricature  given  on 
pp.  11-13  of  his  tract.  Then  it  might  have  been  seen  in  its  true  charac- 
ter, and  judged  according  to  its  merits.  It  seems,  however,  to  have  suited 
his  purpose  better  in  this  case,  to  scatter  the  assertions  or  assumptions  on 
which  the  argument  is  based,  over  most  of  the  pages  of  the  historical 
section  of  his  tract,  now  in  one  connection,  than  in  another,  and  always  in 
such  a  way  as  to  cover  their  weakness,  and  to  conceal  their  inconsisten- 
cies. Professing  to  take  a  broad  and  profound  view  of  the  case,  the 
breadth  is  found,  nevertheless,  to  be  like  that  on  which  airy  castles  rest, 
and  the  profundity  a  shallow  depth  of  thin   transparent  fictions.     And 


46  HISTORICAL   NOTES. 

yet,  all  is  done  in  so  self-confident  and  defiant  a  manner,  that  less  scruti- 
nizing minds  maybe  tempted  to  regard  all  as  real,  substantial  truth,  simply 
by  the  unblushing  boldness  with  which  it  is  asserted. 

But  let  these  scattered  parts  of  the  pretended  argument  be  gathered 
together.  Let  them  be  fairly  considered  in  their  connection,  and  in  their 
consistency  or  incompatibility  with  facts.  Subject  them  to  such  tests  as 
they  must  be  able  to  endure  if  they  shall  be  allowed  to  stand  for  what 
they  are  given.  By  this  just  process,  let  us  see  how  much,  or  how  little 
they  are  really  worth,  and  whether  they  can,  indeed,  bear  the  structure 
which  is  so  confidently  built  upon  them. 

Four  items  seem  to  be  comprehended  in  Dr.  Nevin's  basis,  and  these, 
though  given  disconnectedly,  are  so  dependent  upon  each  other,  that  if 
one  fails,  all  fall  through.  The  first  of  these  points  is,  that  the  Synod  had 
a  clear  and  distinct  hnowlcdge  of  the  plan  and  design  of  the  Committee, 
as  those  have  been  executed  in  the  Revised  Liturgy.  It  is  asserted,  not  only 
by  Dr.  Nevin,  but  by  others  on  the  same  side,  that  the  Synod  well  under- 
stood, especially  after  the  assent  given  to  the  principles  of  the  Baltimore 
report,  what  the  Committee  intended  to  do,  and  was  doing,  in  the  prose- 
cution of  the  work  assigned  to  them.  This  was  known,  it  is  afiirmed, 
from  the  tenor  of  those  principles;  from  the  character  of  the  Provisional 
Liturgy  in  which  those  principles  were  carried  out;  and  from  the  avowals 
of  some  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  publicly  made  from  time  to  time. 
And  yet,  with  all  this  full  knowledge  and  distinct  understanding  of  the 
case,  the  Committee  was  allowed  and  encouraged  to  go  forward  with  their 
work  in  the  very  way  in  which  they  executed  it. 

What,  now,  does  all  this  imply?  Evidently,  either  that  the  Synod 
started  out  in  the  Liturgical  movement  with  the  fixed  purpose  of  revolu- 
tionizing its  cultus  and  worship  in  the  radical  way  now  advocated  and  pro- 
posed, or,  that,  though  starting  with  the  design  of  simply  improving  its 
established  system  in  a  manner  consistent  with  itself,  this  purpose  was  af- 
terwards made  to  give  way  to  revolutionary  measures,  subversive  of  the 
established  liturgical  system  and  usages  of  the  Church.  It  is  assumed, 
therefore,  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  original  design,  the  Synod 
consented,  with  a  full  understanding  of  the  case,  to  the  prosecution  of  a 
scheme  by  which  the  German  Beformed  Church  would  be  '-essentially  and 
materially"  removed  from  that  apostolic  primitive  foundation,  both  in 
doctrine  and  liturgical  practice,  on  which  she  had  been  planted  in  the 
16th  century,  and  be  relaid  upon'a  foundation  whose  chief  stones  should  be 
gathered  from  the  third  and  fourth  centuries.  Ignoring  the  three  hun- 
dred years  of  her  history  since  the  Keformation,  overleaping  the  Reforma- 


HISTORICAL    NOTES  47 

tion  itself  as  a  sort  of  illegitimate*  birth,  closing  the  eye  to  the  "geueral 
mass  of  Romish  corruptions"  (Anxious  Bench,  2ud.  ed.,  p.  9,  10),  which 
"abounded"  during  the  many  centuries  of  Romish  dominion  preceding 
the  Reformation,  the  Synod,  with  full  knowledge  and  apprehension  of 
what  was  meant,  permitted  and  encouraged  the  Committee  to  cast  them- 
selves at  the  feet  of  the  renowned  fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries, and  obtain  from  such  as  Athanasius,  Basil,  Cyprian,  and  Tertullian, 
not  only  some  suggestions  in  regard  to  worship,  nor  merely  some  such 
prayers  or  collects  of  universally  acknowledged  excellence  as  that  of 
Chrysostom,  but  the  ruling  principles  of  their  entire  system. 

Could  any  assumption  be  more  preposterously  absurd  than  this?  It 
seems  incredible  that  Dr.  Nevin  himself,  in  calmer  hours,  can  believe  it; 
still  more  incredible,  that  he  should  expect  it  to  be  accepted  for  truth  by 
others.  That  a  Synod,  representing  a  Church  whose  doctrinal  standard, 
whose  spirit  and  genius,  whose  constitution,  whose  entire  previous  history, 
and  whose  actually  predominant  faith  and  practice,  were  a  most  positive  and 
decided  protest  against  those  essential  departures  from  primitive  Apostolic 
Christianity,  which  characterized  the  Church  of  the  centuries  named,  and 
from  which,  as  poisonous  germs  and  seeds,  the  still  grosser  errors  and 
abuses  of  subsequent  centuries  sprang;  that  such  a  Synod  should  have 
been  persuaded  by  the  propositions  of  a  single  report,  read  once,  or  at 
most,  twice,  by  the  published  views  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  two  or  three  disci- 
ples of  his  views,  or  by  any  other  considerations,  to  give  up  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  had  made  the  Church  free,  and  to  let  her  become  en- 
tangled again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage;  this  is  incredible. 

And  it  is,  likewise,  so  utterly  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  that 
the  author  of  the  Vindication  repeatedly  contradicts  himself  in  trying  to 
make  out  this  point.  Unable  to  defend  the  course  pursued  by  the  Com- 
mittee, on  the  ground  of  special  instructions  given,  he  takes  refuge  to  this 
general  view  of  the  case.  Hard  pressed  for  sufficient  evidence,  he  boldly 
assumes  that  the  Synod  knew  how  the  work  was  being  done,  and  approved 
of  the  plan."{"  And  yet,  in  other  connections,  he  concedes  the  very  point 
at  issue,  by  confessing  that  neither  the  Committee  nor  the  Church  foresaw 
whither  matters  were  tending.  On  p.  32,  33,  of  the  "Vindication,"  we 
read  in  reference  to  the  tract  of  1862-3,  entitled,  "Liturg.  Question," 
and  in  which  the  principles  subsequenHy  carried  out  in  the  Revised 
Liturgy  are  set  forth:  "I  hardly  exj^ected  or  wished  the  Synod  to  fall  in 

*Who  cares  for  rhetorical  compliments  bestowed,  grudgingly,  if  not  from  policy,  upon 
the  Reformation  and  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  16th  century,  when  their 
principles  are  denounced,  and  their  practice  is  discarded  ? 

f  "The  Synod  knew  perfectly  well  where  the  Committee  stood  in  regard  to  the  whole 
subject."     Vind.,  p.  36. 


48  HISTORICAL   NOTES. 

with  the  high  view  of  altar  worship  preseatsd  in  the  tract."  Oa  p.  38, 
below,  we  read  in  reference  to  the  Revised  Liturgy,  that  the  Committee 
'■'■felt  that  they  had  been  snccesa/al  in  bringing  the  book  into  a  form  suita- 
ble to  the  wants  of  the  Church,  and  likely  now  to  come  into  general  use." 
On  p.  46,  however,  we  read  that,  to  a  large  extent,  the  entire  Western 
portion  of  the  Church  was  "in  profound  ignorance  of  the  subject."  And 
once  more,  in  strange  forgetfuluess  of  what  was  said  on  p.  38,  as  quoted 
above.  Dr.  Nevin  says,  (p.  48):  "how  far  the  work  itself,  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  now  before  the  public^  may  prove  satisfactory  to  the  Church,  rc- 
mains  yet  to  he  seen."  What  does  all  this  mean?  The  Synod  knew  what 
the  Committee  was  doing.  It  approved,  substantially,  of  the  radical  course 
they  were  pursuing,  and  was  impatient  for  the  completion  of  the  work  in 
such  style  and  form,  that  the  Church  might  be  led,  without  delay,  into 
the  new  Eden  which  would  thus  be  opened  to  her.  And  yet,  after  all  the 
faithful  toils  of  the  Committee,  according  to  the  mind  of  Synod  and  de- 
sires of  the  Church,  after  all  their  success  in  bringing  the  book  into  the 
very  form  proposed  and  longed  for,  a  form  entirely  '^suitable  to  the  wants 
of  the  Church,"  and  "likely  to  come  into  general  use,"  it  "remains  to 
BE  SEEN  how  far  it  may  prove  satisfactory  to  the  Church !" 

Nor  is  this  all.  Notwithstanding  the  bold  assumptions  in  regard  to  the 
Synod's  clear  knowledge  of  the  Committee's  position  and  doings,  and 
notwithstanding  the  Committee's  consciousness  of  having  succeeded  so 
satisfactorily  in  doing  their  work,  as  Dr.  Nevin  is  fully  persuaded  the  Sy- 
nod wanted  it  done,  only  see  with  what  extreme  anxiety,  trepidation  even, 
that  completed  work  is  laid  before  Synod,  and  what  excessively  modest 
and  moderate  hopes  are  entertained  concerning  its  acceptableness.  The 
work,  we  are  told  (p.  41),  came  to  Synod,  "asking  barely  permission  to 
live,  and  nothing  more."  And  this  is  literally  true.  Whether  we  turn 
to  the  reports  of  the  permanent  Committee  on  the  Liturgy,  or  to  the  re- 
ports of  special  Synodical  Committees  from  time  to  time,  or  consult  the 
speeches  made  and  articles  written  in  favor  of  the  work,  the  same  timid, 
lowly,  half-hoping  spirit  meets  us.  Like  the  Pope  on  Maundy  Thursday,  it 
seems  to  bow  as  a  very  servus  servorum,  and  beg  the  privilege  of  being  al- 
lowed only  some  little  opportunity  of  doing  some  small  service  for  the  dear 
Church  of  that  most  incomparable  symbol,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and 
of  trying,  merely  by  way  of  experiment,  whether  it  may  possibly  be  able 
to  improve  its  doctrines  and  worship,  its  spirit  and  life,  by  a  few  modifica- 
tions of  these  made,  in  conformity  with  third  and  fourth  century 
Cyprianic,  Athanasian,  and  Ambrosian  principles!  Is  this  the  language, 
is  this  the  suit  of  a  movement  which  feels  confidently  assured  that  it  has 
been  carried  forward  faithfully  according  to  instructions,  and  in  es- 
sential harmony  with  the  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  Body  by 


HISTORICAL   NOTES.  49 

which  that  movement  was  inaugurated,  and  under  the  direction  of  which 
it  professedly  reached  thejdesired  result  5J 

But  there  is  still  another  ftict,  showing  how  utterly  groundiess  this  as- 
sumption is.  The  Committee  acknowledged  more  than  once  in  the  course 
of  their  work,  that  tlioy  themselves  did  not  foresee  where  they  would  end. 
''Their  studies,  conferences,  and  experimental  endeavors,  shut  them  up, 
in  a  very  slow  looy,  to  this  finally,  as  the  only  proper  conclusion  of  their 
work.  They  were  themselves  brought  more  and  more  under  the  power  of 
an  idea  ivhich  carried  them  loith  inexorable  force  its  own  way  ',  so  that 
they  were  compelled  to  change  again  and  again  what  they  had  previously 
prepared,  till  all  was  brought  to  take  at  last  its  present  shape."  This  con- 
fession may  be  found  on  p.  39  of  the  "Liturgical  Question,"  published  in 
the  Fall  of  1862.  A  similar  confession  is  reiterated  on  p.  21  of  the  "Vin- 
dication." Taking  these  admissions  in  connection  with  other  hints  of 
like  import  occasionally  given,  do  they  not  most  clearly  prove,  that  even 
the  Committee  was  moving  forward  more  or  less  hap-hazard,  and  walking 
uncertainly  in  dim  twilight  at  least,  if  not  groping  in  the  dark?  Do  they 
not  concede  that  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  coadjutors,  felt  themselves  at  the 
mercy  of  a  current  which,  for  aught  they  knew,  might  carry  them,  "with 
inexorable  force,"  up  the  muddy  Tiber,  as  well  as  up  the  limpid  Rhine  ? 
And  yet,  forsooth,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  the  Synod  knew  perfectly 
well  what  the  Committee  was  doing,  how  they  were  doing  it,  and  where 
the  doing  would  end;  and,  with  such  knowledge,  fully  approved  of  all. 
Will  Dr.  Nevin  reconcile  this  palpable  contradiction? 

For  my  own  part,  without  laying  claim  to  any  greater  discernment  than 
belongs  to  most  common  men,  it  has  seemed  clear  to  me  for  at  least  six 
years,  that  the  movement  was  tending  towards  a  result  essentially  and  ma- 
terially at  variance  with  the  original  design  and  expressed  desires  of  the 
Synod.  And  I  think  that  Dr.  Nevin  deludes  himself,  through  excessive 
modesty,  when  he  says  that  the  Committee,  including  himself  of  course, 
were  mere  passive  instruments  in  the  hands  of  an  inexorable  ritualistic 
power,  which  carried  them,  whether  they  would  or  no,  its  own  way.  He 
may  disclaim  the  credit,  and  yet  many  will  give  him  the  credit  of  sup- 
posing that  the  author  of  "Early  Christianity"  and  "Cyprian,"  in  the 
3Iercersburg  Review^  could  hardly  have  been  so  much  in  the  dark,  as  he 
meekly  imagines  himself  to  have  been,  upon  the  points  involved  in  the 
liturgical  movement.  It  is  true,  that  nothing  suggested  by  me,  in  the 
Committee,  or  set  forth  in  the  long  series  of  articles  published  in  the  Mes- 
senger in  1862,  showing  the  irreconcilable  disagreement  between  the  es- 
tablished cultus  of  the  Reformed  Church,  the  instructions  of  Synod,  and 
the  radical  ritualistic  course  which  the  Committee  seemed  then  determined 
upon  pursuing,  might  give  him  any  light  or  satisfaction.  But  it  will  not 
4 


50  HISTORICAL   NOTES. 

be  easy  to  persuade  any  one  that  he  needed  light,  or  was  sailing  without 
compass,  in  the  dark.  He  saw  clearly  what  ,he  regarded  as  the  utter 
misery  ani  outrageousness  of  the  free-prayer  system,  and  gave  a  most 
forcible  exhibition  of  his  views  upon  that  subject,  in  1862.  At  the  same 
time  he  had  gained  a  perfect  insight  into  what  he  considered  the  worth- 
lessness  of  "mechanical  directory"  "pulpit  hand-books,"  such  as  our 
Church,  and  others,  had  always  used,  when  forms  were  used  at  all.  And 
surely,  it  will  be  concluded,  that  he  must  have  seen  further  into  the  im- 
port of  the  only  ritualistic  alternative  left,  than  he  seems  willing  to  think 
he  did.  And  yet.  as  he  disclaims  this,  it  may  be  proper  to  accept  of  the 
concession.  But»is  it  any  wonder,  that  amidst  conflicting  testimony,  and 
contradictory  facts  like  these,  the  mind  of  the  Synod  should  remain  un- 
settled and  somewhat  confused?  Is  it  not  rather  far  more  in  accordance 
with  reason,  and  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  to  suppose,  that  Synod 
took  it  for  granted^  that  whatever  might  be  said  on  the  one  side,  or  on  the 
other,  the  Committee  would  no  doubt,  in  the  end,  produce  a  liturgy  in  es- 
sential  and  material  harmony  loith  instructions,  and  suited  to  the  histori- 
cal genius  of  the  Chui'ch, 

It  will  serve  to  expose  still  further,  how  gratuitous  and  groundless  this 
assumption  is,  if  one  more  fact  is  considered.  The  Synod,  after  1857, 
possessed  a  means  of  ascertaining  what  seemed  to  be  the  mind  and  purpose 
of  the  Committee,  which  was  far  more  tangible  and  reliable  than  mere 
floating  rumors  or  vague  suppositions  could  supply.  That  means  was 
furnished  in  the  Provisional  Liturgy  published  that  year.  In  the  Pro- 
visional Liturgy,  the  Committee  gave  a  full  exemplification  of  the  ideal 
Liturgy  recommended  in  the  Baltimore  Report  of  1852,  and  of  that  sort  of 
a  Liturgy  which  they  thought  "the  Church  needed,  and  which  wovild 
satisfy  the  expectations  and  wants  of  the  German  Reformed  Church." 
(Report  of  the  Committee  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Allentown,  p. 
80.)  Now  the  Synod  had  a  right  to  take  that  Liturgy  as  a  fair  exponent 
of  the  utmost  extent  to  which  the  Committee  thought  the  Church  should 
go,  in  its  Liturgical  developments.  The  work,  they  said,  was  most  care- 
fully prepared,  was  the  result  of  mature  deliberation,  and  was  declared  to 
be,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee,  "in  harmony  with  the  theological 
life  and  historical  genius  of  the  Church  for  whose  use  it  had  been  pre- 
pared." Where,  then,  could  the  Synod  have  gone  to  learn  the  views  and 
designs  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  other  members  of  the  Committee,  so  properly 
as  to  that  book.  But  suppose  the  Synod  derived  its  knowledge  of  the 
subject  from  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  as  the  best  source  for  obtaining 
such  knowledge.  To  what  conclusion  would  this  lead?  Was  it  calcu- 
lated to  produce  the  impression  that  the  Revised  work  would  be  prose- 
cuted on  a  basis  essentially  different  from  that  on  which  the  Provisional 


HISTORICAL   NOTES.  51 

work  was  constructed  ?  Most  assuredly  not.  If  the  Provisional  Liturgy, 
therefore,  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  declaration  of  Dr.  Nevin's  views  in  the 
case,  nothing  could  well  have  been  better  calculated  to  mislead  the  mind 
of  Synod  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  work  of  revision  would  be  carried 
on,  or  as  to  the  nature  of  the  result  to  which  that  work  has  come.  The 
material  and  essential  diversities  between  the  two  books  will  be  more  fully 
set  forth  in  the  next  section  of  this  tract..  But  they  are  so  broad  and 
deep,  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  so  many  should  be  disappointed  with 
the  result.  And  this  especially  in  view  of  the  fact,  a  fact  not  to  be  for- 
gotten, that  the  result,  such  as  it  is,  was  reached  in  disregard  of  the  ex- 
pressed wishes  and  suggestions  of  the  Classes,  as  shown  on  a  previous  page. 

How  evident,  in  view  of  these  facts,  that  Dr.  Nevin  has  been  deluded 
by  his  own  assumptions.  The  "  broad  exposition,"  therefore,  instead  of 
demonstrating  the  '"universal  falsehood"  of  my  historical  analysis  of  the 
detailed  instructions  by  which  the  work  should  have  been  governed,  proves 
itself  to  be  most  false  and  deceptive.  And  so  sure  am  I  that  he  has  fallen 
into  error  on  this  point  that  I  appeal  most  confidently  to  those  brethren 
who  constituted  the  several  Synods  concerned,  in  confirmation  of  the  fact 
given  above.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  impression  of  a  few  who  de- 
sired a  book  like  the  new  Order  of  Worship,  the  expectation  of  the  large 
majority  was,  that  the  Committee  would  prepare  and  ofi'er  a  liturgy  with 
less  responsive  services,  and  such  positive  modifications  both  as  to  form 
and  doctrinal  expressions,  as  would  bring  it  into  closer  conformity  with 
the  established  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church,  than  even  the  Provisional 
Liturgy  was,  upon  full  trial,  felt  to  be. 

A  second  item  in  Dr.  Nevin's  theory  seems  to  be,  that  the  Synod  from  ^ 
time  to  lime  approved  of  the  course  which  the  Committee  teas  pursuing,  and 
thus  conditionally  committed  itself  to  the  adoption  of  their  worhwhen  done. 
After  what  has  been  said  in  exposure  of  the  fallacy  of  the  point  just  dis- 
posed of,  but  little  need  be  added  to  prove  the  error  of  this  item.  For  as 
it  rests  mainly  upon  the  same  assumptions,  it  falls  with  them.  The  means 
however,  by  which  it  is  attempted  to  fortify  this  assertion,  serve  to  show 
how  great  a  mistake  was  made  by  the  author,  in  abandoning  the  substantial 
ground  furnished  by  official  records,  and  taking  refuge  to  a  visionary  con- 
ceit. 

First  of  all  a  general  appeal  is  made  to  the  fact  that  the  Synod  from 
time  to  time  adopted  the  reports  made  by  the  Committee  of  the  progress  of 
their  work.  Such  reports  were  made  at  MartinsbTirg  1850,  Baltimore 
1852,  Chambersburg  1855,  &c.  A  sufficient  answer  to  this  is,  that  in  the 
adoption  of  such  reports,  it  is  never  thought  or  intended  that  a  Synod 
should  commit  itself  to  the  endorsement  of  all  the  statements  they  may 
contain;  and  then,  so  far  as  the  reports  in  question  are  concerned,  there  ■ 


52  HISTORICAL   NOTES. 

is  nothing  in  them  to  indicate  the  purpose  of  the  Committee  to  produce 
such  a  work  as  the  Revised  Liturgy. 

But,  in  the  next  place,  special  stress  is  laid  upon  the  action  of  the  Sy- 
nods of  Chambersburg  in  1862,  and  of  Lewisburg  in  1865.  Both  those 
Synods  met  during  the  period  of  the  Revision.  To  save  repetition,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  pp.  21— 40  of  this  tract  for  an  account  of  the  action  of  the 
former  of  these  Synods  upon  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee 
then  rendered.  But  the  members  of  that  Synod  will  no  doubt  be  greatly 
astonished  to  learn  that  the  vote  finally  taken  upon  the  Liturgical  ques- 
tion, then  discussed,  committed  the  majority  to  an  endorsement  of  the  ex- 
treme sentiments  set  forth  in  the  tract  entitled  the  "Liturgical  Question." 
They  will  be  likely  to  repudiate  this  assumption  most  earnestly,  and  to  de- 
clare that  they  were  not  called  upon  at  all  to  vote  upon  the  sentiments  of 
the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  as  set  forth  in  that  tract  any 
more  than  upon  the  sentiments  of  the  minority  report,  as  presented  by 
Dr.  E  Heiner,  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher  and  myself.  The  truth  of  the  case  is 
that  the  only  point  gained  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  friends  at  the  Synod  of 
Chambersburg,  was  that  of  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  work  of 
revision.  That  the  Committee  had,  indeed,  spoken  very  boldly  in  their 
report,  no  one  denies.  Nor  will  any  one  deny  that  it  was  remarkable  that 
some  of  the  views  they  proclaimed  were  allowed  to  pass  without  some  de- 
cided expression  of  disapproval.  Certainly  no  Synod  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church  could  now  be  induced  to  endorse  those  views.  But  it 
is  a  most  unwarrantable  assumption  for  Dr  Nevin  to  conclude  that  because 
the  sentiments  of  that  report  escaped  formal  rebuke,  the  Synod  approved 
of  them,  or  of  the  Committee's  utterance  of  them.  And  just  as  little 
was  the  Committee  justified  in  assuming,  that  because  no  such  rebuke  was 
administered,  they  .were  authorized  subsequently  to  carry  out  the  work 
of  revision,  in  accordance  with  the  extreme  principles  advocated  in  that 
report.     For  to  all  intents  the  Baltimore  basis  was  still  in  full  force. 

The  reference  to  the  Synod  of  Lewisburg,  in  1865,  is  of  still  less  account 
for  our  author's  argument.  For  that  Synod  not  only  expressed  no  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  work  as  it  was  going  on,  but  had  no  opportunity  to  do  so, 
as  only  a  few  copies  of  the  specimens  then  completed  were  circulated,  and 
those  privately. 

At  most,  therefore,  all  that  can  be  claimed  on  this  point  is,  that  Synod 
held  its  judgment  in  reserve  until  the  whole  work  should  be  completed, 
and  a  full  opportunity  should  be  aff'orded  to  judge  of  its  real  merits.  Mean- 
while the  matter  was  confided  to  the  hands  of  the  Committee,  in  the  hope 
that  it  would  discharge  its  duty  in  faithful  conformity  with  wishes  dis- 
tinctly expressed,  and  with  instructions  definitely  given. 


HISTORICAL    NOTES.  53 

If  the  successive  Synods  of  the  Eastern  portion  of  the  Church  meant 
by  their  actions,  what  Dr.  Nevin  claims  was  meant,  those  Synods  were 
consciously  committing  themselves  to  a  most  serious  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  and  to  such  a  fundamental  change  of  some  of  her 
essential  doctrines  and  usages  as  is  expressly  forbidden  by  that  charter  of 
spiritual  right,  without  the  previous  consent  of  the  Classes.  With  the 
careful,  explicit  wording  of  that  Constitution  before  them;  with  a  know- 
ledge of  the  jealousy  with  which  the  Synod  has  ever  guarded  its  articles 
against  violation ;  with  a  conviction  of  the  prevailing  agreement  of  the 
mind  of  the  Church  with  the  principles  laid  down  in  those  articles,  and 
of  her  sincere,  intelligent  attachment  to  the  denominational  peculiarities 
which  they  exhibit;  can  it  be  for  a  moment  really  supposed,  that  the  Sy- 
nod nevertheless  meant  to  clothe  the  Committee  with  unqualified,  discre- 
tionary power,  to  make  whatever  radical  changes  they  pleased  and  to  give 
assurances  that  those  changes  w^ould  be  as  unqualifiedly  approved  and  ac- 
cepted ?  Who  can  believe  this?  Implicit,  if  not  blind,  as  the  confidence 
of  the  Church  in  any  of  her  members  might  be,  it  is  a  reproach  upon  her 
good  sense,  her  self-respect,  and  her  obligation  to  regard  her  constitutional 
law,  to  assume  that  she  could  be  guilty  of  such  fully. 

But  the  author  of  the  "  Vindication"  ventures  boldly  upon  a  third  as- 
sumption in  support  of  his  historical  theory.  He  interprets  the  action  of 
the  Synods  of  York  arid  Dayton  last  Fall,  as  a  virtual  endorsement  of  the 
Revised  Liturgy.  This  is  indeed  not  categorically  asserted.  But  the  de- 
clarations made  on  pp.  40-47,  in  regard  to  what  was  done  by  the  Eastern 
Synod  at  York,  last  October,  and  on  pp.  46-47  in  reference  to  the  action 
of  the  General  Synod  in  Dayton,  last  December,  are  plainly  designed  to 
produce  this  impression.  The  only  evidence  in  support  of  the  assumption 
that  the  Synod  of  York  endorses  the  Committee's  course  is  derived  from 
the  prcamhle  of  the  special  report  there  adopted.  But  until  Dr.  Nevin 
can  explain  why  the  original  third  resolution  of  that  report  was  stripped 
of  every  expression  commendatory  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  and  reduced  to 
the  simple  form  in  which  it  was  adopted,  this  appeal  to  the  preamble  can- 
not help  his  argument  (See  p.  32  of  this  tract.)  His  inability  to  explain 
this  is  only  too  manifest  from  his  utter  silen^  in  regard  to  it.  He  would 
have  the  reader  believe,  that  the  special  report  in  question,  was  adopted 
pretty  much  as  it  now  stands  on  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  at  York,  though 
he  knew  how  materially  it  had  been  amended  in  what  was,  for  his  purpose 
a  vital  point.  And  then  to  show  how  little  the  Synod  meant  to  commit 
itself  to  the  Revised  Liturgy  by  anything  the  report  in  question  may  con- 
tain, we  find,  at  the  close  of  the  action  in  the  case,  the  very  explicit  and 
significant  statement:  "  In  the  foregoing  action  of  Synod,  it  was  under- 
stood, that  the  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the  report,  did  not  commit  those  who 
voted  for  it  as  to  the  merits  of  the  hooJc  ?" 


54  HISTORICAL    NOTES. 

If  Dr.  Nevin  meant  to  be  perfectly  fair  and  candid  iu  discussing  this 
subject,  why  did  he,  not  only  make  no  allusion  to  the  change  of  the  third 
resolution  above  referred  to,  but  wholly  ignore  this  official  qualification  of 
the  action  of  the  York  Synod?  And  why,  furthermore,  does  he  withhold 
the  fact,  that  the  Report,  as  so  materially  amended,  was  carried,  at  last, 
hy  the  votes  of  those  very  members  of  the  Synods  who  had  opposed  it  in 
its  original  form,  because  in  that  form  the  Revised  Liturgy  was  approved 
and  commended  ?  For  in  the  fifty-three  votes  found  in  favor  of  the  Re- 
port, there  are  at  least  twenty-four  names  which  would  not  have  been  given 
for  the  full  adoption  of  the  Revised  Liturgy.  Is  the  concealment  of  known 
facts,  ingenuous  or  the  opposite  ? 

How  little  ground  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  at  Dayton  furnishes 
for  Dr.  Nevin's  sweeping  and  boastful  assumption,  maybe  sufficiently  seen 
from  the  following  explanation  of  the  import  and  intended  bearing  of  the 
report  there  adopted,  as  given  immediately  before  the  vote  was  taken.  "It 
is  said  that  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report  would  exalt  this  Liturgy 
to  an  article  of  faith.  We  deny  this.  It  is  not  the  case.  We  do  not 
propose  to  give  it  any  binding  force.  The  object  is  simply  to  let  the  Li- 
turgy live.  We  leant  no  authority  to  go  with  the  book.  No  endorsement 
is  sought.  We  are  not  yet  prepared  for  that  j^oint.  We  ask  that  decision 
may  be  postponed — that  the  book  may  be  made  an  object  of  inquiry  and 
investigation,  so  that  when  we  are  called  upon  to  act  with  reference  to  its 
adoption,  toe  may  do  so  intelligently .  There  are  doctrines  apjjertaining  to 
the  Liturgy ;  there  are  customs  not  in  present  harmony  with  the  Church. 
The  discussion  we  have  had  shows  that  we  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  doc- 
trines contained  in  it.  *  *  *  *  Qyp  object  is  simply  this,  to  let  it 
live.  A  child  is  born  into  the  family — let  it  breathe — give  it  a  chance 
for  its  life.  It  may  have  something  wrong  in  it,  but  you  do  not  know 
that  it  has.  So  let  it  run  its  chances.  We  ask  nothing  more;  we  can 
ask  nothing  less."  These  remarks  were  made  by  Rev.  Dr.  Gans,  one  of 
the  most  intelligent,  and  at  the  same  time,  extreme  advocates  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  new  measures,  made  immediately  before  the  vote  was 
taken.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  great  modesty  and  moderation  of 
the  majority  report  prepared«nd  thus  explained  by  himself,  they  no  doubt 
had  great  weight  in  securing  the  adoption  of  that  report.  The  same  sen- 
timents are  reiterated  in  the  '•  Vindication/'  p.  47.  How  then  can  Dr.  Nevin 
appeal  to  this  action,  so  explained,  in  support  of  his  broad  assumptions  ? 
And  how  could  some  friends  of  the  extreme  ritualistic  movement,  on  re- 
turning home  from  Dayton  proclaim  in  the  face  of  such  facts  as  the  above, 
that  the  General  Synod  had  virtually  endorsed  and  adopted  the  new  Order 
of  Worship?  True,  the  majority  report  does  allow  of  it  "as  an  Order  of 
Worship  proper  to  be  used/'  and  much  account  has  since  been  made  of 


HISTORICAL   NOTES.  55 

this  last  phrase.  But  if  that  phrase  was  really  intended  to  express  the 
meaning  now  put  into  it  by  some  zealous  friends  of  the  new  Order,  must 
not  those,  who  voted  for  the  report,  have  been  deceived  by  the  explicit  de- 
clarations of  Dr.  Gans,  to  the  contrary? 

Surely  then  it  is  a  great  misrepresentation  to  assert  that  the  work  of-the 
Committee  as  presented  in  the  Revised  Liturgy  was  ever  endorsed  by  any 
Synod  of  the  Grerman  Reformed  Church.  That  Liturgy  possesses  no  more 
Synodical  authority  than  did  the  Provisional  Liturgy.  It  has  simply  been 
allowed  to  go  forth  with  a  chance  for  its  life.  It  is  put  on  open  trial. 
All  are  at  liberty  to  examine  and  criticise  itj  any  minister,  congregation, 
layman  of  the  Church,  may  object  to  its  use.  Reasons  against  its  intro- 
duction may  be  freely  expressed.  Those  who  as  yet  do  not  know  what 
its  doctrinal  and  devotional  peculiarities  are,  may  ascertain  them,  and  then 
approve  or  disapprove,  according  to  what  is  believed  to  be  right  and  truth. 
Nor  should  any  one  be  discouraged  against  the  full  exercise  of  this  liberty: 
The  General  Synod  did  not  by  any  means  enjoin  an  actual  trial  of  the  book. 

And  still  less  was  its  action  designed  to  forestall  or  forbid  a  thorough  and 
searching  dissection  of  the  new  system.  That  action  is  not  absolute  and 
final.  It  does  not  say  that  the  book  may  not  contain  the  very  errors  with 
which  it  is  charged,  or  that  it  is  not  open  to  the  ritualistic  objections 
which  are  brought  against  it.  There  is  nothing  in  that  action  which 
makes  it  factious  or  seditious  for  any  one  who  believes  the  new  Order  to 
be  materially  at  variance  with  the  life  and  spirit  of  our  Church,  and  dan- 
gerous in  its  character  and  tendency,  to  say  so,  and  to  say  so,  if  he  chooses, 
(that  would  be  a  matter  of  taste)  in  terms  as  violent  and  scurrilous  as 
those  employed  in  the  "Liturgical  Question"  against  free  prayer  and  such 
^'mechanical  directories"  as  the  Palatinate  Liturgy,  or  in  the  so-called 
"  Vindication "  against  scores  of  ministers  of  the  German  Reformed 
Church.  Why  should  more  leniency  be  shown  to  this  new  "  Order  of 
Worship,"  than  its  authors  show  towards  the  liturgical  legacies  which  our 
fathers  have  bequeathed  to  us  ?  Upon  what  grounds  can  it  be  thought 
entitled  to  greater  respect  than  the  Agenda  of  earlier,  and  I  will  add, 
better  days  ?  Surely,  therefore,  the  General  Synod  of  Dayton  could  not 
have  meant  for  a  moment  to  tie  the  tongue  or  to  stay  the  pen  of  earnest 
and  honest  criticism.  Nor  can  it  be  fairly  understood  to  have  bound  the 
highest  judicatory  of  the  Church  never  to  pronounce  decided  judgment 
against  the  new  "  Order."  The  most  that  can  be  made  out  of  the  lan- 
guage adopted  is,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Synod  at  the  time,  and  so 
far  as  it  had  the  means  of  knowing  the  general  character  of  the  book,  it 
might  be  allowed  for  use  in  an  experimental  way.  For  satisfactory  rea- 
sons pastors,  consistories  and  congregations  may  refuse  to  permit  this,  be- 
lieving its  doctrines  and  service  subversive  of  our  legitimate  faith  and 


56  HISTORICAL   NOTES. 

practice,  and  likely  to  do  harm  wherever  they  may  be  circulated.  All 
therefore  may  enjoy  equal  freedom  to  examine  the  matter  and  to  decide 
upon  it  for  themselves,  and  all  should  be  bold  to  use  their  liberty,  in  spite 
of  any  bitter  denunciations  or  fierce  anathemas  to  which  they  may  be  sub- 
jected for  so  doing.  No  such  threats  as  were  thrown  out  by  correspondent 
A.  in  the  "Messenger"  some  time  ago  against  the  exercise  of  full  freedom 
of  speech  and  pen  in  exposing  what  may  be  considered  a  scheme  subver- 
sive of  our  denominational  faith  and  practice,  should  intimidate  any,  or 
have  the  force  of  a  puff  of  a  child's  breath,  in  deterring  them  from  the 
severest  criticism  and  condemnation  of  that  scheme — provided  this  be  done, 
as  it  may  be,  without  violating  Christian  principles  or  propriety.  And  if 
this  be  thus  done,  so  far  from  there  being  reason  to  fear  Synodical  reproof, 
it  is  certain  that  in  the  end  the  courage  and  fidelity  so  displayed  will  be 
commended. 

One  more  point  in  the  historical  theory  of  the  "  Vindication"  remains 
to  be  disposed  of.  It  is  the  assumption  that  the  Church  at  large  was  de- 
veloping lolth  the  Committee  in  liturgical  views,  and  demanding  some  such 
hook  of  public  devotions  as  the  new  "  Order  of  Worship."  ("Vindication," 
pp.  8,  13,  15,  38.  Liturgical  Question,  pp.  63,  71,  &c.)  It  seems  to  be 
a  favorite  delusion  of  the  author  to  suppose  that  the  Church  has  all 
along  been  not  only  permitting  him  and  those  who  may  agree  with  him, 
to  give  free  utterance  to  their  peculiar  opinions,  and  patiently  listening  to 
them,  but  that  she  has  been  cordially  imbibing  and  embracing  them. 
He  finds  manifest  pleasure  in  cherishing  the  hope  thas  -he  has  not  only 
succeeded  in  training  many  pupils  placed  under  his  tuition  to  the  belief 
of  those  views,  but  that  this  success  extends  widely  into  the  Church  at  large, 
so  that  her  membership  generally  are  not  only  willing,  but  anxious  to  ex- 
change the  faith  and  practice,  genius  and  spirit  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  their  fathers,  for  the  new  scheme  now  pressed  upon  our  acceptance. 
And  so  confident  does  he  become  at  times  of  the  correctness  of  this  fancy, 
that  he  defiantly  asserts  that  the  opponents  of  the  new  measures  resist 
their  introduction  as  earnestly  as  they  do,  because  they  are  afraid  the  peo- 
ple would  eagerly  adopt  them,  if  they  were  but  afforded  an  opportuuity  of 
doing  so. 

Now  this  assumption  is  so  flatly  contradicted  by  well-known  facts,  that 
instead  of  feeling  called  upou  to  show  its  absurdity,  we  are  rather  led  to 
inquire  by  what  strange  hallucination  the  author  of  the  "Vindication" 
could  have  been  tempted  to  adopt  it.  He  knew  how  anxiously  some  dis- 
ciples of  his  progressive  and  changeful  views  desired  to  secure  their  gene- 
ral acceptance,  and  the  adoption  of  the  peculiar  measures  growing  out  of 
those  views.  He  knew  how  zealously  those  views  and  measures  had  been  ad- 
vocated with  more  or  less  variation  and  confusion,  in  the  press  and  in  many 


HISTORICAL    NOTES.  57 

of  the  pulpits  of  the  Church,  for  years  past.  He  knew  that  the  "■pheno- 
menal" S.  S.  Hymn  Book  of  1860,  had  been  furnished  as  a  most  effectual 
propagandist  of  those  views  and  measures,  by  training  the  pliant  minds  of 
unsuspecting  youth,  ever  fond  of  novelty,  to  the  use  and  love  of  them. 
And  yet  he  must  or  might  have  known,  also,  with  how  little  actual  effect 
all  this  had  been  done.  Considering  the  nature  of  the  agencies  employed 
to  promote  the  scheme,  he  might  and  should  have  seen  and  estimated  the 
true  significance  of  its  practical  failure.  Was  he  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that 
the  new  mode  of  worship,  "  not  after  the  pattern  of  our  fathers,"  that  is 
the  mode  exemplified  in  the  first  form  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  had 
made  next  to  no  advance  since  1862,  when  he  wrote:  "Such  as  it  is, 
however,  the  Provisional  Liturgy  has  not  come  thus  far,  as  we  know,  into 
any  general  use  in  the  Church;  *  *  *  has  failed  to  get  into  any 
wide  use.  *  *  Our  congregations  generally  have  refused  to  go  into 
the  use  of  it?"  Did  he  not  know  that  there  were  not  ten  congregations 
at  the  time  he  wrote  his  "Vindication,"  in  which  the  full  forms  were 
employed,  least  of  all  that  for  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  And  did  he  not  know 
that  some  of  those  few  into  which  it  has  been  somewhat  fully  introduced, 
but  without  the  consent  of  the  Consistories  or  the  people,  are  not  favorable 
to  the  innovations,  and  would  gladly  see  them  dropped?  It  is  about  three 
years  since  I  assisted  at  a  communion  season  in  one  of  those  congregations. 
Dr.  Nevin  himself  was  present.  From  what  I  had  heard,  I  supposed 
the  Lord's  Supper  service  of  the  Liturgy  would  be  followed  closely.  But 
to  my  surprise  little  more  than  half  the  service  in  the  book  was  used,  and 
that  half  in  a  manner  which  made  it  very  strongly  resemble  one  of  those 
pulpit  hand-book  services  on  which  Dr.  Nevin  had  cast  so  much  ridicule 
and  contempt.  Has  all  this  been  forgotten — and  that  by  one  whose  me- 
mory held  so  tenaciously  what  transpired  many  years  before  ?  It  seems 
incredible.  How  then  shall  the  self-betrayal  into  an  assumption  so  utterly 
at  variance  with  well-known  facts  be  explained  ?  But  one  solution  sug- 
gests itself  to  our  minds.  It  is  the  fatal  error,  an  error  which  appears  to 
have  gained  complete  ascendancy  over  him,  of  supposing  that  he  and  those 
who  more  closely  follow  him,  fully  represent  the  Church.  This  solution 
may  possibly  not  be  the  correct  one.  But  until  a  better  is  ofi"ered,  it  must 
suffice.     (See  my  former  Tract,  p.  33.) 

There  is  an  easy  method,  however,  of  testing  this  matter  in  a  most 
practical  way.  Let  those  brethren  in  the  ministry,  having  pastoral 
charges,  who  wholly  endorse  Dr.  Nevin's  views  and  measures,  try  in  an 
open  and  fair  way  to  introduce  the  New  Order  into  their  congregations. 
Let  them  plainly  tell  the  people  all  the  differences  between  this  new  mode 
of  worship  and  that  which  the  German  Reformed  Church  has  hitherto 
authorized  and  practised.     Keep   nothing   back.     Tell   all  frankly  and 


58  HISTOEICAL    NOTES. 

truly.  Ask  them  whether  they  desire  that  henceforth  their  pastors 
should  be  priests  in  the  specific  high-church  sense ;  whether  they  are 
willing  to  consent  to  the  doctrine  that  there  can  be  no  full  pardon  of  sin, 
until  comruon  confession  be  made  before  the  minister,  thus  converted  into 
a  priest,  in  the  Church,  and  he  declares  their  sins  forgiven.  Let  the  peo- 
ple have  intelligent  opportunity  to  say,  also,  whether  they  desire  these 
multiplied  responses,  with  enforced  forms  of  prayer  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  free  prayer.  Ask  them  about  '■'■all  faces,  in  time  of  prayer,  being 
turned  toward  the  altar;  about  risings  and  howings,  in  token  of  the  con- 
senting adorations  of  the  people."  Show  them  plainly  the  broad  difference 
between  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptismal  services  of  the  new  Order,  and 
those  handed  down  to  us  from  the  IGth  Century,  differences  which  recent 
developments  and  explanations  now  prove  to  be  as  broad  and  as  deep  as 
those  between  the  4th  Century  ''  mummeries  "  of  a  corrupted  Church  in 
which  "quackery  in  its  worst  form  had  enthroned  itself,"  and  the  pure 
and  simple  worship  of  the  primitive  Apostolic  Church.  And  having  fairly 
shown  them  these  things,  let  them  choose  freely  whether  they  will  hold 
fast  to  the  old,  or  take  instead  the  new  Order  of  Worship.  Does  it  need 
prophetic  vision  to  foresee  what  would  be  the  result  of  such  a  submission 
of  the  case  to  the  people  ?  Cannot  every  layman  say  what  would  be  the 
effect,  if  Dr.  Nevin,  or  any  of  his  more  devoted  disciples  should  start  out 
upon  a  mission  thus  to  reconstruct  and  renovate  the  Churches,  after  this 
ultra-Mercersburg  model?  If  there  be  any  doubt  in  his  mind,  let  him  try 
it,  and  learn  by  experience  what  he  seems  reluctant  otherwise  to  believe. 
And  yet,  who  but  one  blinded  by  his  own  desires,  could  have  failed  to 
discern  that  the  cause  of  the  practical  failure  of  the  ritualistic  movement 
of  the  past  ten  years,  lay  in  the  extreme  innovations  it  proposed?  As  a 
theory,  that  system  of  worship  might  seem  very  attractive  to  minds  of  a 
certain  cast  and  training.  But  when  it  came  to  putting  the  theory  into 
practice,  it  was  found  to  be  quite  another  thing.  The  people  would  not 
have  it.  Earnestly  as  they  desired  the  restoration  of  the  proper  and  legi- 
timate usages  of  the  Church,  their  pastors  felt  instinctively  that  they  would 
not  endure  such  an  overturning  of  their  faith  and  practice  as  was  aimed  at 
and  proposed  by  Dr.  Nevin's  new  Order.  And  yet  so  complete  and  persist- 
ent is  his  self-deception,  that  the  cause  of  failure  is  supposed  to  have  been, 
not  that  the  Provisional  Liturgy  went  too  far,  was  too  radical  in  some  of 
the  changes  it  proposed,  hut  that  it  was  not  radical  enough.  The  conces- 
sions made  in  the  larger  portion  of  that  work  to  "a  mechanical,  pulpit 
hand-book,  pseudo-liturgical"  style  of  worship,  such  as  was  provided  by 
"the  Church  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism"  of  glorious  Tercentenary  com- 
memoration— those  unfortunate  concessions  are  supposed  to  have  done  the 
mischief.     The  way  to  manage  children,  is  not  to  humor  them.     Such  hu- 


HISTORICAL   NOTES.  59 

moriDg  only  spoils  them,  and  makes  them  refractory.  Hence  the  remedy 
must  be  to  recall  those  concessions  in  the  revision  of  the  work.  The  new 
order  must  be  a  unit,  and  that  unity  must  consist  in  its  extreme  and  ex- 
clusive radicalism.  The  Church  that  will  not  have  a  log  for  its  king,  must 
take  a  serpent.  The  people  that  murmur  at  tasks  imposed  with  straw, 
must  be  silenced  by  being  compelled  to  perform  those  tasks  without  straw. 
So  Rehoboam,  the  foolish  son  of  Solomon,  argued  that  subjects  who  com- 
plained of  his  rule,  did  so  because  his  demands  were  too  lenient.  The 
reader  knows  his  remedy,  and  the  ruin  which  that  remedy  wrought  in 
Israel. 

Summing  up,  then,  in  a  few  sentences,  this  review  of  the  histoi-y  of  the 
Liturgical  movement,  we  get  these  results.  (1.)  By  the  explicit  instruc- 
tions of  Sj'nod,  and  the  confession  of  Dr.  Nevin  himself,  the  Revised  Li- 
turgy should  have  been  constructed  and  prepared,  mainly,  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  of  the  Baltimore  basis.  (2.)  Any  modifications  made 
of  the  Provisional  Liturgy  of  1857,  were  to  combine  a  simplification  of  the 
more  ritualistic  forms  of  that  Liturgy,  especially  of  those  for  sacramental 
and  special  occasions,  with  such  alterations  in  certain  doctrinal  phrases  as 
would  bring  them  in  more  literal  harmony  with  the  standards  of  the 
Church.  (3.)  The  Synod  and  the  Church  had  a  right  to  expect  that 
their  wishes  in  these  respects  would  be  complied  with,  and  had  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  a  course  contrary  to  the  instructions  given,  and  to  known 
wishes,  would  be  pursued  by  the  Committee.  (4.)  The  new  '■  Order  of 
Worship"  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  the  Baltimore  basis, 
or  with  the  suggestions  of  the  Classes,  but  exhibits  a  material  and  essen- 
tial disregard  of  those  principles  and  suggestions,  in  containing  full  respon- 
sive services  only^  in  retaining  the  objectionable  doctrinal  phraseology  of 
the  Provisional  Liturgy,  in  utterly  excluding  free  prayer,  and  in  present- 
ing a  system  of  worship  which  shows  no  proper  regard  to  Reformed  Litur- 
gies of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  which  is  not ''  consistent  with  the  doctri- 
nal and  devotional  genius  of  the  German  Reformed  Church."  (5.)  The 
course  of  the  Committee,  as  indicat-ed  by  the  result  reached,  has  never  been 
endorsed  by  the  Synod,  and  their  "Order"  has  not  been  adopted.  To 
these  points  may  be  added — (6.)  As  an  inference  fairly  warranted  by  the 
history  of  the  case,  that  notwithstanding  their  prosecution  of  the  work  in 
a  way  not  justified  by  the  instructions  given  and  wishes  indicated  by  facts 
or  expressed  in  words,  the  Committee  nevertheless  hoped,  and  have  most 
zealously  endeavored,  to  secure  a  favorable  reception  for  their  work,  and 
its  ultimate  adoption  and  introduction,  by  bringing  such  influences  to  bear 
upon  the  case  as  circumstances  placed  under  their  control. 

And  they  have  so  far  succeeded  in  their  measures   (I  mean,  of  course, 
those  five  members  of  the  Liturgical  Committee  who  display  special  zeal, 


60  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

and  who  at  York  or  Dayton  took  tlic  most  active  part,  in  defending  and 
furthering  the  movement,  viz.,  Drs.  Nevin,  Wolf,  Gerhart,  Harbaugh,  and 
llev.  T.  G.  Apple)  that  the  case  now  stands  where  the  Synod  at  Dayton 
left  it.  An  "Order  of  Worship,"  so  "materially  and  essentially"  differ- 
ent from  anything  ever  known  to  the  German  Reformed  Church  either  in 
this  country  or  in  Europe,  and  known  to  be  so  contrary  in  some  of  its 
leading  features  to  the  predominant  wish  and  taste  of  the  Church,  that 
its  advocates  and  friends  would  not  let  it  come  to  a  fair  vote  upon  its 
merits,  has  been  allowed  to  go  down  to  the  congregations  for  examination 
or  use,  and  thus  to  become  either  a  means  of  revolutionizing  the  consti- 
tution and  customs  of  the  entire  Church,  or  an  occasion  of  dissension  and 
strife,  through  a  most  natural  and  justifiable  resistance  to  such  revol- 
utionary innovation.  Historically,  therefore,  it  is  a  question  involving  the 
maintenance  of  the  traditional  evangelical  life  and  character  by  which  the 
German  Eeformed  Church  has  been  from  the  first  distinguished,  or  the 
surrender  of  all  to  the  extreme  and  sweeping  demands  of  a  system  of 
doctrine  and  cultus  the  paternity  of  which  may  be  traced  directly  to  Dr. 
Nevin  himself  For,  as  shown,  already,  the  new  "Order  of  Worship"  is 
not  built  upon  the  Baltimore  basis,  as  mainly  prepared  by  Dr.  Schaff, 
but  upon  a  very  material  modification  of  that  basis.  And  that  modifica- 
tion was-  made  chiefly  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  Dr.  Nevin,  and 
through  the  force  of  his  personal  influence  over  ardent  disciples  of  those 
views.  What  all  this  new  scheme  involves,  the  radical  revolution  in  the 
devotional  usages  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  which  it  purposes  to 
effect,  and  its  essential  disagreement  with  her  established  principles  of 
public  worship,  next  claim  our  attention. 

THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

Amidst  the  din  and  confusion  of  the  present  controversy,  there  is  great 
danger  that  the  main  point  at  issue  may  be  forgotten,  or  be  made  a  mat- 
ter of  secondary  moment.  It  is  one  of  the  frequent  attendants  of  warm 
and  exciting  discussions,  that  side  issues,  raised  incidentally  or  with,  de- 
sign, and  pressed  with  violence  and  bitterness,  produce  so  much  distrac- 
tion, that  the  minds  of  those  concerned  are  diverted  from  the  interest 
really  at  stake,  and  become  absorbed  with  other  matters.  Such  distrac- 
tion and  diversion  have,  no  doubt,  been  caused  in  the  case  before  us,  by 
the  manner  and  style  in  which  the  debate  has  been  largely  conducted 
by  the  leading  advocates  of  the  new  Order  of  Worship.  Dr.  Nevin,  es- 
pecially, both  at  York,  at  Dayton,  and  in  his  '-Vindication,"  has  helped, 
whether  intentionally  or  unintentionally  to  produce  this  result.  Among  the 
objections  urged  against  the  new  scheme,  the  objectionable  character  of  some 
of  its  doctrinal  expressions  has  been  exposed,  and  pressed  as  a  reason  why  it 


THE   LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  61 

should  not  be  adopted  by  the  Synod,  or  recommended  to  the  Church.  This 
objection,  however,  has  been  raised  and  argued  as  one  involved  simply  in  a 
subordinate  way,  in  the  Liturgical  movement.  Its  great  importance  has  in- 
deed been  admitted,  but  it  has  not  been  set  forth  so  as  to  lessen  the  primary 
question  of  the  proposed  revolution  in  our  entire  mode  of  worship.  But  now 
an  attempt  is  made  by  those  favoring  that  revolution,  to  treat  the  matter  of 
such  radical  Liturgical  changes  as  something  of  comparatively  small  ac- 
count, and  to  make  the  whole  controversy  turn  chiefly  upon  doctrinal 
points.  It  is  quite  easy  to  see  what  would  be  gained  by  effecting  this 
change  of  base.  Doctrinal  points  are  more  or  less  abstruse,  and  can  be 
discussed  in  such  a  manner  that  those  not  familiar  with  the  subtleties  of 
scholastic  or  mystical  theology,  are  unable  to  discern  their  real  import,  or 
to  detect  the  sophistries  and  errors  which  they  involve.  Those  errors 
may  even  attempt  to  vindicate  their  orthodoxy  by  texts  of  Scripture, 
and  by  quotations  from  standard  Church  authorities  which,  in  sound  and 
in  superficial  form,  may  seem  to  substantiate  their  evangelical  preten- 
tions. Why  then,  should  they  be  denounced  or  rejected  ?  Who  will 
undertake  to  pass  judgment  upon  them  as  subversive  of  true  evangelical 
faith?  If  they  can  thus  defend  themselves  by  the  same  Scriptures  and 
standards  of  Church  doctrine  from  which  proofs  of  their  falsity  are  drawn, 
how  shall  the  Church  at  large,  or  any  representative  Synod  of  the 
Church  decide  who  is  wrong  or  who  is  right?  Although,  therefore,  the 
doctrinal  objections  made  to  the  movement  now  agitating  our  Church, 
are  believed  to  be  as  obvious  as  they  are  serious, — a  point  which  will  be 
taken  up  in  the  concluding  section  of  this  tract, — it  may  be  found  more 
easy  to  confuse  the  proof  of  those  objections  by  such  means  as  adroit  de- 
baters are  mostly  skilled  in  using. 

Sometimes  theological  phraseology  is  ambiguous,  or  lacks  precision. 
Certain  terms  employed  may  have  one  sense  in  one  connection,  and  a  dif- 
ferent sense  in  another.  An  author,  consequently,  like  Calvin  or  Ursinus, 
whose  system,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  clear  and  definite  enough,  may  make 
statements  which,  taken  alone  and  out  of  their  proper  connection,  may 
seem  to  furnish  grounds  for  doctrines  diametrically  opposed  to  those  which 
they  really  held.  That  their  writings  should  be  liable  to  such  perversions, 
will,  of  course,  not  surprise  those  who  remember  that  Papists  and  Pusey- 
ites,  as  well  as  Phrygian  Montanists  and  Gnostics,  all  quote  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures for  their  purpose,  and  pretend  to  prove  by  inspired  testimony  that 
their  condemnable  heresies  are  most  heavenly  truths.  But  this  very  liabi- 
lity of  all  writings,  inspired  or  not  inspired,  to  such  misuse,  can  be  made 
the  occasion  of  misleading  the  minds  and  disturbing  the  judgment  of  men, 
and  of  thus  securing,  perhaps,  a  temporary  ascendancy  of  error  over  truth. 

But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the 


62  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

Liturgical  Question,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  is  of  primary  im- 
portance in  the  present  instance,  and  claims  the  most  earnest  consideration 
of  the  Church.  The  movement  began  professedly  as  a  liturgical  move- 
ment. The  changes  which  are  now  most  urgent  in  asking  for  ecclesiastical 
sanction,  and  in  seeking  to  become  predominant,  are  liturgical  changes. 
The  revolution  which  is  striving  to  establish  its  ascendancy,  is  a  revolution 
in  our  mode  of  conducting  public  worship.  Even,  therefore,  if  not  a  sin- 
gle doctrinal  point  of  any  moment  were  at  stake,  it  is  a  matter  sufficiently 
serious  to  justify  an  earnest  challenge,  and  to  demand  most  careful  con- 
sideration, whether  such  a  mere  liturgical  or  ritualistic  revolution  should 
be  allowed  to  prevail.  Taking  the  question  as  amounting  simply  to  this : 
Shall  the  Grerman  Reformed  Church  adhere  substantially  to  the  mode  of 
worship  by  which  she  has  been  distinctively  characterized  for  three  hun- 
dred years,  or  shall  that  mode,  with  the  principles  on  which  it  rests,  be 
abrogated,  discarded,  and  another  mode  '^ essentially  and  materially,"  in 
principles,  and  in  form,"  different  from  it,  be  substituted  in  its  stead?  it 
may  well  be  expected  that  the  Church  would  hesitate  long  before  giving 
an  affirmative  answer,  if  she  did  not  promptly  and  indignantly  reject  the 
very  proposition. 

A  Liturgy  may  exert  greater  influence  than  a  formal  Creed,  not  only 
upon  the  moral  character,  but  upon  the  doctrines  of  a  Church.  The 
moulding  power  of  national  poetry  is  proverbial.  What  is  said  or  sung, 
in  prayer  and  praise,  at  least  by  those  who  take  any  devout  and  earnest 
part  in  both,  must,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  possess  vastly  greater 
power.  Such  prayers  and  hymns  are  most  potently  educational,  and  soon 
insinuate  the  truths  or  errors  they  may  contain  into  the  worshipper's  in- 
most life.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  the  import  of  the  articles  of  their 
Creeds,  people  really,  heartily  believe  what  they  sincerely  sing  and  pray,  or 
practice  in  any  other  form  in  their  private  and  public  devotions.  No  re- 
ligious system  better  understands  this  than  the  Romish  papacy.  There  is 
scarcely  an  error  in  that  monstrous  perversion  of  Apostolic  Christianity 
which  did  not  gain  currency,  and  secure  final  adoption,  in  this  way.  The 
dreadful  idolatry  of  the  mass  can  be  historically  traced  to  this  source.  It 
was  by  gradual  changes  in  the  mode  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  by 
introducing  a  peculiar  phraseology  into  the  liturgical  forms  used  in  its 
administration,  and  by  adding  one  ceremony  after  another  to  the  service, 
that  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  Church,  during  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies, were  slowly  trained  to  those  views  of  the  Sacrament  which  soon 
developed  into  the  abominable  error  which  siihsequently  became  a  leading 
article  in  the  heretical  Creed  of  Rome.  This  is  certified  by  all  evangelical 
Protestant  Church  Histories,  and  is  most  convincingly  demonstrated  in 
Ehrard's  Dogmengeschichte  I.,  186-197.     And  what  history  shows  to  have 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  63 

been  thus  effected  in  regard  to  the  error  of  the  mass,  it  also  proves  was  the 
actual  course  of  development  and  adoption  in  reference  to  the  veneration 
paid  to  saint's  relics,  the  worship  of  the  Mother  of  our  Lord  and  of  saints, 
prayers  for  the  dead  as  associated  with  a  purgatory,  and  well-nigh  every 
other  false  doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Romish  Church.  Those  errors  were 
not  primarily  taught  in  the  preaching,  or  proclaimed  by  the  Creed.  They 
were  inculcated  by  means  of  the  liturgies  and  ritualistic  ceremonies,  which 
became  more  numerous  and  complicated  as  the  Church  was  carried  fur- 
ther off  from  Apostolic  times  and  allowed  herself,  through  the  influence  of 
such  men  as  Cyprian,  Cyril,  Ambrose  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  (A.D.  384,)  to 
be  led  away  from  the  spiritual  simplicity  of  Apostolic  worship.  (Beside  the 
Church  Histories  above  referred  to,  see  Dr.  Nevin's  "  Anxious  Bench,  pp. 
9,  10,  29,  39,  50,  51,  53.  Also  the  articles,  Anglican  Crisis,  Early  Chris- 
tianity, and  Cyprian,  Mercersburg  Ileview  for  1851,  1852.) 

All  this  too,  let  it  be  most  distinctly  noted,  possibly  took  place  without 
any  previous  design  or  preconcerted  plan  on  the  part  of  those  who  first 
introduced  those  liturgical  and  ritualistic  changes,  into  the  services  of 
their  respective  churches  (for  they  wei;e  mostly  introduced  in  an  inde- 
pendent and  limited  way.)  Greatly  as  Dr.  Nevin  may  overrate  Cyprian 
and  others  of  like  spirit  in  that  early  age,  not  only  in  regard  to  their 
learning,  but  also  other  qualities — and  who  does  not  know  that  distance, 
and  darkness  too,  often  magnify  objects  long  gazed  at  through  them — it 
may  be  admitted  that  they  were  at  least  ordinarily  devout  and  honest  men. 
W-hen  they  made  figurative  and  rhetorical  allusions  to  the  oblation,  (obla- 
tio)  as  the  bread  and  wine  were  called,  which  members  of  the  churches 
presented  for  use  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  attendant  ''love-feast," 
and  where  they  spoke  of  the  duty  of  renewed  self-consecration  to  the 
Lord,  in  the  sense  of  Rom.  12  :  1,  in  connection  with  the  offering  (obla- 
tion) thus  presented ;  and  when,  to  enforce  this  exhortation  they  appealed 
to  the  propitiatory  offering  which  He  voluntarily  made  of  Himself,  once 
for  all,  and  which  they  were  assembled  solemnly  to  commemorate,  and  as 
they  did  so  lifted  up  the  plate  (a  custom  first  practised  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury,) containing  the  sacramental  bread  ;  they  may  not  have  most  distantly 
thought  of  inculcating  the  idea  of  even  a  symbolical  reenactment,  an  anti- 
typical  repetition  of  the  atonement.  And  yet  the  impression  produced 
in  this  way  upon  the  popular  mind,  especially  as  such  modes  of  represen- 
ting the  matter  were  amplified  by  their  successors,  resulted  in  that  false 
contemplation  of  the  sacred  service  which  soon  perverted  the  sacrament 
into  a  sacrifice,  and  the  sacramental  sign  and  seal  of  the  believing  spiritual 
union  with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  into  a  means  and  channel  of  the  literal 
communication  of  His  substantial  flesh  and  blood  to  all  who  participated 
in  the  sacramental  ordinance. 


64  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

Whilst,  therefore,  the  few  ritualistic  changes  which,  by  slow  degrees, 
were  admitted  into  the  Church  duting  the  latter  part  of  the  third,  fourth 
and  immediately  succeeding  centuries,  may  have  been  originally  designed 
to  promote  the  spirit  of  true  devotion,  and  so  to  serve  for  the  better  edi- 
fication of  her  members;  they  proved  a  most  perniciously  efficient  means 
of  sowing  error,  and  propagatiog  corruptions  of  the  primitive  Gospel  faith 
and  practice.  And  the  mischief  thus  wrought,  possibly  by  a  gross  abuse 
of  the  original  design  of  those  changes,  was  greatly  increased  and  inten- 
sified, by  the  multiplication  of  liturgies  in  later  centuries,  characterized  by 
those  changes  in  their  most  objectionable  form,  and  by  ''  improvements" 
even  upon  them,  for  which  greater  currency  was  gained  by  ascribing  their 
authorship  to  some  famous  Church  fathers  of  earlier  times.  Such,  for  in- 
stance were  the  Coptic  Liturgies  which  bore  the  names  of  Basil,  Gregory 
of  Nazianzen,  and  Cyril,  though  they  were  certainly  not  produced  earlier 
than  the  Seventh  century.     (See  Ebrard's  D.-Gesch.) 

With  such  proofs  before  us  of  the  educational  power  of  liturgies,  it 
would  not  be  easy  to  overrate  the  doctrinal  significance  of  the  ritualistic 
movement,  into  which  the  desire  and  effort  of  our  Church  to  provide  her- 
self  with  an  order  of  worship  suitable  to  her  historical  character  and  spi- 
ritual wants,  have  been  turned.  Let  us,  therefore,  not  permit  our  atten- 
tion to  be  diverted  from  the  extreme  and  radical  nature  of  this  movement 
in  its  primary  ritualistic  aspect,  by  any  doctrinal  discussion  which  may  be  in- 
cidentally associated  with  it.  The  first  question  now  before  the  Church  is 
whether  this  new  ritualistic  scheme  of  worship,  prepared  in  disregard  of 
the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  Synod,  and  confessedly  at  variance  with  any 
style  ever  known  in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  shall  be  allowed  to 
usurp  the  place  of  worship  in  its  legitimate  evangelical  Reformed  type 
and  spirit.  After  having  for  three  hundred  years  maintained  an  order  of 
worship  possessing  as  much  authority  and  entitled  to  as  sincere  regard  as 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  with  which  that  order  stands  in  the  closest  af- 
finity, shall  we  let  the  Church  be  exposed  to  all  the  hazards  involved  in 
such  a  ritualistic  experiment  as  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  more  zealous  advocates 
of  the  new  scheme  would  persuade  us  to  makei'  This,  assuredly,  is  a 
matter  which  should  be  weighed  with  great  deliberation.  Especially  must 
it  be  admitted  that  the  Church  should  pause  a  long  time  before  giving  her 
consent  to  changes  so  radical,  that  they  would  make  her  entirely  different, 
not  only  in  her  outward  dress,  but  her  in\nost  spirit  from  what  she  now  is. 
Does  the  new  scheme  guarantee  to  her  any  certain  adequate  compensation 
for  changes  which  would  wholly  sunder  her  historical  relation  to  her  past 
life,  and  attach  her  to  the  peculiar  life  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  subsequent 
centuries  ? 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  65 

When  the  real  design  of  this  movement  became  manifest  more  than  six 
years  ago,  and  its  extreme  tendencies  were  then  exposed,  it  was  common  for 
its  advocates  to  deny  that  it  involved  the  radical  innovations  charged  upon 
it.  In  reply  to  whatever  was  said  or  adduced,  in  proof  of  its  revolution- 
ary nature,  efforts  were  made  to  show  that  the  extreme  peculiarities  of  the 
more  ritualistic  portions  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  were  in  essential  har- 
mony with  authorized  Reformed  antecedents!  Zwingli's  Liturgy  of  1525 
was  appealed  to  in  a  most  disingenuous  way,  as  justifying  the  use  of  numer- 
ous responses,  and  even  the  strong  phraseology  which  occurs  in  the  sac- 
ramental forms  of  the  Provisional  book.  By  this  means  it  was  hoped  not 
only  to  furnish  an  excuse  for  the  extreme  course  which  some  members  of 
the  Committee  were  then  bent  on  pursuing,  but  to  reconcile  the  Church 
to  that  course,  and  secure  its  formal  approval.  (See  Ger.  Ref.  3Iessevgey 
for  April  1862.) 

Soon,  however,  it  was  felt  that  such  appeals  could  not  be  fairly  sustained. 
Whatever  seeming  countenance  might  be  given  to  the  extreme  forms  ad- 
vocated, by  the  first  Swiss  order  of  services,  the  Committee  were  conscious 
that  the  resemblance  was  mainly  external  and  superficial,  and  also  that  no 
peculiarities  of  those  early  Swiss  forms  could  be  honestly  pressed  as  of 
authority  for  the  German  Reformed  Church.  Hence  this  line  of  argument 
has  been  almost  entirely  abandoned.  Occasionally  some  feeble  pen  endea- 
vors to  take  it  up,  and  reecho  what  was  erroneously  asserted  five  years 
ago,  at  least  in  a  modified  form.  But  the  disagreement,  not  to  say  antag- 
onism, between  the  New  Order  of  Worship,  and  that  mode  which  is  dis- 
tinctively German  Reformed,  is  too  broad  and  obvious  to  be  denied.  Hence 
in  the  notable  tract  of  1862,  the  Committee  summoned  courage,  frankly  to 
confess,  that  if  the  Synod  or  the  Church  had  been  expectingthat  the  New 
Order  would  be  in  essential  harmony  with  the  historical  cultus  of  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church,  they  were  greatly  mistaken.  Thus  they  (including 
Dr.  Harbaugh)  acknowledged  that  all  attempts  to  vindicate  the  peculiar- 
ities of  the  new  Order,  as  then  proposed,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  in 
unison  with  the  spirit  and  genius  of  the  historical  Reformed  Church,  such 
attempts  as  Dr.  Harbaugh  and  one  or  two  others  had  made  during  that 
very  year  (1862)  in  the  "  Messenger,"  were  in  contradiction  of  facts,  and 
calculated  to  deceive  the  people.  No  such  agreement  between  the  new 
Order  proposed,  and  our  old  mode  of  worship,  was  claimed.  The  new. 
Order,  it  was  then  avowed,  "  made  no  such  profession  or  pretence." 

But  now  to  suit  this  very  significant  change  of  front  on  the  part  of  the 
leading  advocates  of  the  new  measures,  a  new  line  of  defence  or  assault 
must  be  established.  And  this  is  immediately  done.  Hence  we  hear  no 
more  of  any  "  material  or  essential "  agreement  between  the  ruling  spirit 
and  structiire  of  the  new  Order  and  our  old  cultus ;  but,  along  with  con- 
5 


66  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

cessions  of"  material  and  essential"  disagreement,  we  have  arguments,  la- 
bored and  specious,  to  justify  this  disagreement.  And  what  is  the  burden 
of  these  arguments  ?  Why  that  the  age  of  the  Reformation  was  unfavor- 
able to  the  pi'o  duct  ions  of  true  liturgies,  and  that  the  fathers  of  our  Church 
7cere  not  qualified  for  the  work. 

Thus  one  of  the  main  points  in  the  controversy  is  changed.  Instead  of  being 
required  any  longer  to  prove  that  the  cultus  which  Dr.  Nevin's  advocates  is 
"  materially  and  essentially  "  at  variance  with  any  recognized  German  Re- 
formed cultus,  it  becomes  necessary  to  vindicate  the  qualifications  of  the 
Church,  and  of  her  leading  theologians  of  the  sixteenth  century,  to  provide 
a  liturgy  worthy  of  the  name,  and  suitable  to  the  wants  of  her  members. 
Happily,  the  opponents  of  the  ritualistic  innovations  have  as  abundant 
means  of  vindicating  their  Church,  and  the  founders  of  that  Church, 
against  this  accusation,  as  they  had  to  show  the  radical  diversities  of  the 
new  style  of  worship  from  that  approved  and  practiced  by  the  Church. 

In  their  allusions  to  worship  as  distinctively  characteristic  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church,  the  advocates  of  the  new  measures  frequently  involve 
themselves  in  contradictions  which  are  very  absurd  and  irreconcilable,  but 
which  are  nevertheless  calculated  to  confuse  and  mislead  the  minds  of  some 
who  may  read  their  statements  upon  the  subject.  At  one  time  they  ac- 
knowledge that  our  Church  has  had  from  the  beginning  a  true  system  of 
worship.  That  ^^  worship  is  not  a  new  thing  in  the  Reformed  Church,"  is 
most  graciously  admitted.  Nay,  they  go  farther,  and,  with  at  least,  im- 
plied approbation,  confess  that  the  "prescribed  forms"  used  in  such  wor- 
ship, were  consistent  with  a  true  idea  of  worship.  Indeed,  to  serve  the 
purpose  of  a  certain  line  of  argument,  the  faith  and  practice  of  our  eccle- 
siastical ancestors  is  sometimes  warmly  commended,  and  set  in  most  flat- 
tering contrast  with  the  usages  of  later  times.  Even  the  old  Palatinate 
Liturgy  comes  in  for  a  share  of  compliments  in  sucli  connections,  and  in 
comparison  with  it,  the  forms  said  to  he  used  by  our  ministerial  fathers* 
of  the  last  century,  here  in  America,  are  pronounced  "jejune  formularies." 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  when  the  advocates  of  the  new  "Order" 
come  to  descant  upon  their  own  theory  of  worship,  and  wish  to  exhibit  its 
superior  merits,  their  whole  tone  is  changed.  Then  both  the  Liturgies, 
and  the  worship  of  the  Church  conducted  more  or  less  fully  according  to 
the  order  of  those  Liturgies,  are  spoken  of  not  only  in  terms  of  disappro- 
bation, but  of  sarcastic  disparagement  and  strong  contempt.  Such  direc- 
tories for  public  worship,  as  were  originally  provided  for  our  Church,  are 
freely  denounced  as  "a  bastard  conception  of  what  a  liturgy  means,"  as 


*Dr.  Nevia  should  ccrtain4y  have  known  that  the  earliest  ministers  of  our  Church  in 
■this  country,  almost  invariably  brought  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  with  them  and  used  its 
.forms  in  worship. 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  67 

"an  outward  fixation  of  forms  which  must  almost*  necessarily  seem  to  be 
formal  only,  and  therefore  slavish  also  and  dead."  Or  they  are  sneered  at 
as  "dry  forms,"  "mechanical  helps,"  and  altogether  "not  worthy  of  re- 
spect." And  in  full  harmony  again  with  the  contumelious  style  of  criti- 
cism we  find  apt  imitators  speaking  or  writing  of  our  old  established  Order 
of  Worship  in  the  most  disparaging  terms,  and  comparing  its  peculiar  ser- 
vices to  "beggarly  elements"  which  should  be  promptly  forsaken,  and 
cheerfully  cast  out  to  the  dogs.     (See  Liturg.  Question.) 

In  the  same  contradictory  way  Dr.  Nevin  puts  face  to  face,  on  directly 
opposite  pages  of  his  remarkable  tract,  a  commendation  and  a  condemnation 
of  the  Liturgy  prepared  by  Dr.  Mayer.  Thus  on  p.  8  he  refers  quite  ap- 
provingly to  that  book  as  "  the  respectable  work  of  a  truly  respectable  man." 
And  yet  on  almost  parallel  lines  of  p.  9  we  read  in  reference  to  this  same 
work:  "But  what  have  we  here  ?  Dead  forms  only,  bound  together  in  a 
dead  way ;  from  which  it  was  vain  to  expect,  therefore,  that  the  breath  of 
life  should  be  kindled  in  the  devotions  of  the  sanctuary."  That  in  this 
case,  as  in  his  allusions  to  the  earlier  Liturgies  of  the  Church,  the  censure 
should  be  expressed  in  so  much  stronger  terms  than  the  praise,  may  be 
perfectly  natural.  Only  as  the  Liturgy  of  Dr.  Mayer  had  been  adopted  by 
the  Synod,  and  is  still  so  far  as  formal  official  action  goes,  the  Liturgy  of 
the  Church,  Dr.  Nevin  should  have  alluded  to  it  in  more  decorous  terms, 
and  not  have  so  rudely  denounced  it,  under  cover,  too,  of  the  honored  name 
of  a  departed  friend. 

But  through  all  these  contradictions,  it  is  the  manifest  aim  of  the  writers 
to  excite  disgust  and  prejudice  against  that  mode  of  worship  which  for 
three  centuries  has  been  distinctively  Reformed  j  and  to  create  a  taste  and 
desire  for  that  style  of  Liturgy  which  has  now,  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century  of  the  Christian  era,  been  discovered  to  be  the  only  one 
worthy  of  respect,  and  for  which  the  Christian  Church  is  indebted  to  Dr. 
Nevin  and  his  more  active  associates  in  the  work.  To  put  the  argument 
in  a  favorite  logical  form,  it  furnishes  the  following  significant  syllogism: 

No  book  of  devotional  forms  for  public  use,  which  does  not  correspond 
in  its  principles  and  structure  with  the  new  Order  of  Worship,  can  be  con- 
sidered a  true  Liturgy,  and  worthy  of  respect. 

The  earlier  Liturgies  of  the  Reformed  Church  do  not  thus  correspond 
with  the  new  Order  of  Worship. 

Therefore  such  Reformed  Liturgies  are  no  true  Liturgies,  and  have  no 
claim  to  our  respect. 

To  this  scandal  upon  the  character  and  reputation  of  the  Reformed 
Church  has  the  Liturgical  movement  been  driven  by  the  anti-Reformed 
spirit  to  which,  as  to  an  "inexorable  force,"  the  advocates  of  the  new 
m^isurcs  have  been  aurrandorlnir  themselves.     Dr.  Nevin  uses  all  the  in- 


68  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

fluence  with  which  a  confiding  Church  has  been  investing  hira^  to  produce 
in  the  heart  of  her  members  feelings  of  disgust,  aversion,  contempt  for  her 
own  historical  character,  and  legitimate  peculiarities  of  worship.  With 
all  his  profound  "respect  for  the  sixteenth  Century,"  he  not  only  sees  no 
reason  to  be  bound  slavishly  by  all  its  opinions,  but  tells  too  patient  listen- 
ers that  the  Reformers  of  that  period  "had  no  proper  insight  into  the  true 
conception  of  a  Liturgy,  regarded  as  an  organic  scheme  of  worship;  and  no 
active  sympathy  therefore  with  the  idea  of  worship  in  any  such  form." 
Who  will  thank  him  for  his  frigid  professions  of  respect  for  the  Church, 
after  such  condemnatory  criticisms  upon  the  labors  of  her  devout  and 
learned  fathers?  He  may  pour  with  lavish  profusion  harsh  and  ribald 
accusations  of  slander,  libel,  and  whatever  else  comes  freely  to  a  vitupera- 
tive pen,  upon  obnoxious  individuals,  and  no  one  will  be  seriously  dis- 
turbed, excepting  for  the  prosecutor's  reputation.  But  when  a  man  called 
into  the  Church  from  another  denomination  to  aid  in  maintaining  and 
defending  the  established  faith  and  practice  of  that  Church;  one  most 
warmly  welcomed  to  her  inner  sanctuary,  and  long  honored  with  more 
than  moderate  regard  and  homage,  allows  himself  to  assail  and  ridicule 
that  Church  in  matters  pertaining  to  her  inmost  life  and  most  sacred 
usages,  it  may  well  excite  deep  indignation  in  the  breast  of  every  member 
of  that  Church  to  whom  her  true  character  and  reputation  are  of  more 
account  thanthe  fitful  Theological  vagaries  of  a  comparative  stranger.  It 
may  be  safely  asserted,  that  there  is  not  another  minister  in  the  Reformed 
Church,  whether  in  this  country  or  in  Europe,  who  would  have  written  a 
tract  so  defamatory  of  Reformed  Liturgical  principles  and  usages  as  that 
of  1862,  now  again  endorsed  in  this  "Vindication."  And  it  is  more  than 
doubtful  whether  another  Synod  could  be  found  which  would  so  patiently 
endure  such  presumptuous  defamation.  Considering  this  endurance,  ma- 
nifested in  the  face  of  the  provocation  given  for  &  severe  rebuke,  it  is  hard 
to  suppress  feelings  of  burning  shame  for  the  seeming  want  of  self-respect 
evinced.  And  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  time  will  come, 
before  many  years  have  passed,  when  the  lenient  toleration  displayed  on 
the  occasion  referred  to,  will  excite  not  only  amazement  but  regret.  Fu- 
ture generations  will  not  know  the  circumstances  under  which  all  took 
place,  and  which  may  now  serve  to  palliate  if  not  to  justify  the  forbearance 
of  the  Church. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  school  so  freely  indulge  in 
such  reproachful  animadversions  upon  the  mode  of  worship  originally 
established  and  more  or  less  faithfully  maintained  in  the  Reformed 
Church,  especially  in  the  German  branch  of  that  Church,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  inquire  somewhat  carefully  into  the  matter,  and  see  whether 
those  animadversions  are  just  or  unjust;  whether  they  spring  from  ignor- 


THE  LITURGICAL  QUESTION.  69 

ance,  or  from  a  worse  source.  Such  an  inquiry,  we  may  feel  assured,  will 
lead  to  a  very  different  judgment  as  to  the  respectableness  of  the  Liturgi- 
cal legacies  bequeathed  to  us  by  our  ecclesiastical  fathers,  from  that  passed 
upon  them  by  the  author  of  the  "Vindication." 

Among  the  first  things  which  claimed  the  attention  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  whether  of  Switzerland,  the  Palatinate,  or  of  other  countries,  was 
the  importance  of  making  suitable  provision  for  the  observance  of  public 
worship.  Dr.  Nevin  perpetrates  an  inexcusable  mistake,  when  he  afiirms 
that  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation,  especially  of  that  section  of  the  great 
and  glorious  work  which  received  the  specific  designation  Reformed^  in 
distinction  from  the  Lutheran,  were  too  much  occupied  with  the  adjust- 
ment of  doctrinal  matters,  to  give  proper  attention  to  the  cultus  of  the 
resuscitated  Church.  He  may  have  been  betrayed  into  this  strange  error 
by  the  fact  that  doctrinal  questions  were  discussed  more  publicly,  and  so 
came  out  more  frequently  and  boldly  into  open  view  on  the  arena  of  con- 
troversy. Or  he  may  have  allowed  himself  to  be  misled  by  the  absence  of 
much  strife  on  points  pertaining  to  the  cultus  of  the  purified  and  reno- 
vated Church,  and  thus  to  conclude  falsely,  that  the  subject  received  but 
little  earnest  attention.  But,  in  regai'd  to  the  former  of  these  points,  it 
was  perfectly  natural,  that  doctrinal  contentions,  as  affecting  the  public 
confessional  life  of  the  Church,  should  place  themselves  in  the  foreground, 
and  occupy  a  more  prominent  and  observable  position.  And  in  reference 
to  the  other  point,  an  entirely  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  comparative 
absence  of  strife  is  furnished  by  the  fact  of  the  substantial  agreement  of 
all  the  leading  Reformers,  both  of  the  first  and  second  period  upon  the 
principles  and  order  of  public  worship. 

It  is  far  from  being  true,  therefore,  that  but  imperfect  limited  attention 
was  paid  to  the  subject  of  worship  by  our  Reformed  fathers.  AH  the 
more  thorough  Liturgies  of  that  period  concur  in  testifying  that  the  oppo- 
site was  the  case.  The  rupture  with  the  Church  of  Rome  had  no  sooner 
become  a  fact,  than  immediate  provision  was  made  for  Liturgical  services 
suited  to  the  new  state  of  things.  Such  forms  as  were  deemed  needful 
for  properly  conducting  public  worship  were  at  once  prepared.  Liturgies 
appeared  almost  simultaneously  with  Creeds  and  Catechisms.  And  quite 
as  much  attention  was  bestowed  upon  the  preparation  of  the  one  as  of  the 
other.  Neither  was  the  product  of  a  single  year.  To  both,  and  perhaps 
equally,  diligent  and  prayerful  study  was  devoted!  The  Heidelberg  Ca- 
techism and  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  were  published,  as  is  well  known, 
during  the  same  year.  And  yet  it  is  just  as  well  known  that  both  were 
the  result  of  several  years  antecedent  labors.  Those  bestowed  upon  the 
Liturgy  were  of  course  prosecuted  more  quietly,  and  their  results  when 
made  public  attracted  less  exciting  observation.     But  it  would  be  very 


70  THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

wrong  to  conclude  from  this  that  they  were  less  earnest  and  thorough,  and 
therefore  "  not  entitled  to  our  respect "  as  fully  as  the  confessional  pro- 
ductions of  that  period. 

And  any  one  who  duly  considers  the  points  which  were  involved  in  the 
Reformation,  and  the  condition  of  those  portions  of  the  Church  which  be- 
came separated  at  that  time  from  Rome,  can  readily  see  why  such  imme- 
diate and  special  attention  should  have  been  given  to  liturgical  matters. 
The  corruptions  of  the  Romish  apostasy  pertained  fully  as  much,  to  say 
the  least,  to  its  cultus  as  to  its  creed.  Its  system  of  worship,  root  and 
branches,  was  as  degenerate  as  its  faith;  indeed,  the  departure  of  the 
former  from  primitive  Gospel  spirituality  and  simplicity  had  largely  led, 
as  was  shown  on  a  previous  page,  to  doctrinal  defection  from  Apostolic 
truth.  It  was  not  simply  the  article  of  justification  by  faith,  for  the  per- 
fect restoration  of  which  the  Reformers  contended;  but  that  article  as  in- 
volving a  purification  of  the  Church  of  ritualistic  abuses,  which  had  been 
multiplied  in  proportion  as  Rome  had  profanely  substituted  justification 
by  works  for  the  true  Gospel  doctrine,  or  as  the  growing  tendency  of  Ju- 
daizing  Galatian  self-righteousness  developed  more  and  more  into  the  pre- 
valence of  those  anti-Apostolic  ritualistic  services,  which,  by  their  natural 
influence,  wrought  such  doctrinal  defections.  It  was  not  simply  for  the 
restoration  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  the  high- 
est rule  of  faith,  that  the  Reformers  contended;  but  for  the  abrogation  of 
those  abuses  in  practice,  and  most  especially  in  worship,  which  had  been 
introduced  simultaneously  with  the  elevation  of  human  traditions  to  a  po- 
sition of  authority  equal  with  or  superior  to  that  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
and  which  were  vindicated  by  appeals  to  such  traditions. 

For  it  is  a  most  significant  fact,  corroborated  by  the  entire  past  expe- 
rience of  the  Church,  that  a  lowering  of  the  standard  of  evangelical  faith 
in  regard  to  these  two  cardinal  doctrines,  is  uniformly  associated  with  the 
advocacy  and  prevalence  of  extreme  liturgical  or  ritualistic  conceits  and 
observances.  There  seems  to  be  an  inseparable  natural  aflanity  between 
the  two  evils.  High-Churchism,  hierarchal  sacerdotalism,  and  compli- 
cated, multiplied  ritualistic  services,  including  the  scrupulous  outward  ob- 
servance of  numerous  saints'  days,  "aesthetic"  rites  and  ceremonies,  are 
commonly,  so  commonly  that  it  might  be  truly  said  always,  found  abiding 
together,  and  locked  in  the  most  cordial  embrace.  Neither  appears  to  be 
compatible  with  the  grand  and  blessed  theme  of  Apostolic  preaching  and 
teaching,  or  with  the  unreserved  recognition  of  the  Bible  as  a  supreme 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  was  so  in  Galatia.  It  was  so  in  most  of  the 
seven  churches,  addressed  and  warned  in  the  Apocalypse.  It  has  been  so 
in  the  Greek  and  Romish  Churches.  It  is  so  with  the  high  ritualistic 
portion  of  the  Anglican  Church.     And  why  should  not  like  causes  pro- 


THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  71 

duce  like  effects  elsewhere  ?     But  matters  pertaining  to  the  doctrinal  sec- 
tion of  this  tract  must  not  be  anticipated. 

Such,  then,  being  the  actual  state  of  things  in  the  Church  as  separated 
from  Rome,  it  was  most  obviously  one  of  the  first  necessities  to  provide  for 
pure  worship,  as  well  as  for  a  pure  faith.  And  it  is  equally  manifest  that 
the  importance  of  making  this  provision  in  the  most  careful  manner,  must 
have  been  fully  realized  by  the  leaders  of  the  Church,  It  may  be  safely 
assumed  that  they  had  quite  as  earnest  a  sense  of  this,  and  fully  as  pro- 
found a  conviction  of  the  significance  and  solemnity  of  the  work,  and  of 
the  vast  spiritual  interests  it  involved,  as  Drs.  Nevin,  Harbaugh,  and  others 
of  their  mind,  as  that  mind  is  expressed  in  the  unjust  and  disparaging  cri- 
ticisms of  the  Liturgical  Question  (pp.  40 — i2).  If  proof  of  this  is  de- 
manded, the  history  and  the  results  of  their  liturgical  labors,  as  those  re- 
sult3  are  set  forth  in  the  Agenda  of  that  period,  may  be  triumphantly  ap- 
pealed to.  Lst  the  various  services  of  those  Agenda  be  tried  by  a  fair 
and  reasonable  standard  of  criticism;  let  them  be  examined,  not  through 
glasses  borrowed  from  fourth  century  fathers,  but  through  a  more  Apos- 
tolic medium;  let  them  be  judged,  not  by  fanciful  Christocentric  conceits, 
but  by  the  light  of  New  Testament  principles,  and  of  genuine  primitive 
practice;  and  they  will  be  found  to  bear  the  most  convincing  testimony  to 
the  diligence  and  care  with  which  they  were  prepared. 

But  the  framers  of  our  early  Reformed  cultus,  and  authors  of  our  first 
Liturgies,  had  not  merely  a  due  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  labors  thus 
imposed  upon  them.  They  possessed  eminent  personal  qualifications  for 
the  work;  and  they  had  at  their  command  ample  means,  and  abundant 
opportunities  for  performing  it  in  a  worthy  and  acceptable  manner.  Of 
their  personal  qualifications  it  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  speak  in  this 
controversy.  But  they  have  been  directly  or  indirectly  assailed  and  dis- 
paraged, and  this  imputation  of  the  comparative  unfitness  of  the  Reformers 
for  satisfactory  Liturgical  duties,  must  be  repelled.  No  proof  need  be 
given,  of  co,urse,  of  their  literary  and  theological  qualifications.  These  are 
not  only  admitted  by  our  opponents,  but  are  in  part  appealed  to  in  evidence 
of  their  lack  of  proper  fitness  for  Liturgical  labors.  It  is  assumed  that  as 
theological  combatants,  and  champions  of  Grospel  orthodoxy  against  errors 
of  all  sorts,  they  must  have  been  necessarily  disqualified,  by  the  very  ex- 
citement and  animosities  connected  with  their  sharp  conflicts  for  the  pro- 
duction of  suitable  devotional  services.  They  were  mighty  men  of  valor, 
it  is  insinuated,  and  potent  controversalists,  on  the  field  of  theological  war- 
fare. They  wielded  pens  like  sharp  two-edged  swords,  in  hewing  giant 
heresies  to  pieces,  and  fighting  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 
But  for  this  very  reason,  it  is  argued,  were  they  unsuccessful  in  other 
offices.  They  lacked,  it  is  affirmed,  the  calmly  devout  and  quiet  spirit 
which  is  most  especially  indispensable  to  those  who  would  provide  the 


72  THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

Church  with  uactious  forms  of  worship.  Furthermore,  it  is  broadly  sug- 
gested, they  were  too  much  under  the  influence  of  opposition  and  aversion 
to  the  ritualistic  practices  of  the  Papacy,  and  were  too  anxious  to  get  away 
as  far  as  possible  from  those  practices.  Hence  the  extreme,  radical,  bald 
simplicity  of  their  Agenda;  their  lack  of  decorous  and  impressive  "ritual 
action  in  worship"  (Liturg.  Ques.,  p  60);  hence  also  the  absence  of  all 
ritualistic  "risings  and  bowings,  and  turning  of  all  faces  towards  the  altar 
in  time  of  prayer"  (Liturg.  Ques.,  p.  35).  Hence,  again,  their  inability 
to  perceive  that  only  such  "life  like  worship"  (in  distinction  from  their 
own  dead  "mechanical  productions"  Liturg.  Ques.,  p.  61),  was  "comely 
and  most  becoming  at  the  same  time  to  the  Lord's  house."  And  hence, 
finally,  their  "  opposition  to  the  constraint  of  fixed  religious  rites  and  cere- 
monies'' (such  for  instance  as  began  to  prevail  from  the  fourth  century 
onwards,  and  with  which  some  brethren  of  our  day  have  become  so  warmly 
enamoured)  "which  could  hardly  fail  to  exert  an  injurious  influence  on 
any  work  of  this  sort"  (L.  Q.,  p.  40). 

For  assumed  reasons  like  these.  Dr.  Nevin  would  persuade  us  to  believe 
that  the  founders  of  the  Reformed  Church  particularly,  were  constitution- 
ally unfitted  for  the  work  they  undertook,  and  which  they  handed  down  to 
posterity,  with  the  same  authority  with  which  they  transmitted  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism.  He  seems  to  know  of  no  other  cause  as  more  power- 
fully operative  in  their  minds  and  hearts;  he  can  assign  no  other  reasons 
for  what  he  regards  as  the  predominant  characteristic  defects  of  such  pulpit 
hand-books  as  the  Palatinate  Liturgy.  So  carelessly  and  so  one-sidedly 
has  the  history  of  the  case  been  studied,  or  so  "hastily"  has  judgment 
been  formed  and  "written"  in  reference  to  it,  that  no  more  complimentary 
account  of  the  matter  could  be  given.  It  is  the  deliberate  decision  of  this 
ritualistic  censorship,  1.  That  the  Liturgies  of  the  16th  Century,  especially 
those  of  the  Reformed  type,  are  mere  "mechanical  directories,"  not  de- 
serving of  respect,  etc.,  etc.  2.  That  they  are  so  because  their  authors, 
such  men  as  Ursinus  and  Olevianus, — in  high  praise  of  whom  neverthe- 
less so  much  is  said  in  Dr.  Nevin's  introduction  to  the  Commentary  on  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  in  the  Ter-Centenary  Monument,  were  not 
qualified  to  produce  any  thing  better.  3.  Therefore  the  German  Reformed 
Church  in  this  country  should  ignore  those  Liturgies,  repudiate  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  they  were  constructed  and  the  sort  of  worship  they  present, 
and  should  adopt  the  new  "Order  of  Worship"  which  is  in  all  respects, 
and  naturally  enough,  so  incomparably  superior  to  those  original  "  pulpit 
hand-books !" 

But  the  premises  on  which  all  those  objections  to  the  Palatinate  and 
other  Reformed  Liturgies  of  that  period,  as  well  as  the  suspicions  raised 
against  the  proper  qualifications  of  their  authors  for  the  work,  rest,  are 
utterly  at  variance  with  facts,  and  must  consequently  be  rejected  as  false. 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  73 

Those  Liturgies  were  indeed  prepared  during  a  period  of  exciting  conflicts, 
and  tlie  men  who  performed  the  task  were  often  involved  in  severe  theolo- 
gical contentions.  But  the  ecclesiastical  strifes  and  agitations  aiiidst 
which  the  Reformed  Agenda  of  Germany,  Switzerland  and  Holland  were 
brought  forth,  were  not  more  unfavorable  to  the  proper  execution  of  the 
work,  than  the  dissensions  and  conflicts  which  disturbed  England  when  the 
"Book  of  Common  Prayer"  was  in  course  of  preparation.  And  the 
authors  of  the  former  were  not  more  deeply  or  violently  involved  in  the 
ecclesiastical  warfare  which  agitated  the  Churches  of  the  Continent,  and 
therefore  more  unfitted  for  the  work  of  providing  a  suitable  order  of  worship, 
than  were  Craumer,  Ridley,  and  their  associates  in  the  preparation  of  the 
Episcopal  Liturgy,  during  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI. 
And  yet  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  recognized  as  answering  very  fully 
to  Dr.  Nevin's  idea  of  a  true  Liturgy,  and  has  been  honored  by  a  remark- 
ably close  imitation  in  the  new  Order  of  Worship  urged  upon  the  acceptance 
of  our  Church ;  the  chief  points  of  difi'erence  between  the  two  being,  that 
the  latter  outdoes  the  other  in  its  extreme  high-church  tone  and  preten- 
sions. 

It  is  equally  erroneous  to  assert  that  the  authors  of  the  Reformed  Litur- 
gies of  the  16th  Century  were  too  much  influenced  by  extreme  and  fana- 
tical aversion  to  the  peculiarities  of  Romish  worship,  to  be  duly  competent 
for  their  work.  This  was  indeed  charged  against  them  by  their  Popish 
opponents;  and  for  them  to  bring  the  accusation  may  have  been  perfectly 
natural.  But  the  charge  has  been  so  often  refuted,  that  it  may  well  excite 
indignation  to  have  it  reiterated  in  our  day;  and  that,  too,  in  our  own 
Church,  and  by  those  who  should  not  only  know  that  it  is  unfounded,  but 
promptly  repel  it  whenever  an  enemy  might  attempt  to  revive  it.  It  is 
not  true  that  the  acknowledged  leaders  of  even  the  first  period  of  the  Re- 
formation, were  swayed  by  such  extreme  and  fanatical  opposition  to  Rome. 
Still  less  can  those  of  the  second  period,  and  most  especially  the  fathers 
of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  be  convicted  of  it.  Eoen  Zwingli  icas 
no  radical,  if  the  facts  and  arguments  set  forth  in  a  long  article  published 
in  the  Mercersburg  Review  of  1849,  and  of  which  Dr.  Nevin  is  the  author, 
may  be  regarded  as  correct.  And  the  representatives  of  the  Reformed 
Church  who  lived  and  labored  after  the  first  excitement  of  the  Reforma- 
tory struggle  had  subsided,  proved  themselves  to  be  still  more  conservative, 
in  a  true  sense,  than  the  Reformation  hero  of  Switzerland. 

That  they  earnestly  and  zealously  opposed  and  denounced  the  errors 
and  superstitions  of  Rome,  is  freely  admitted.  They  are  to  be  honored 
for  it,  not  reproached.  It  is  to  their  great  praise,  that  regardless  of  all 
personal  consequences  to  themselves,  they  laid  bare  the  gross  idolatrous 
corruptions  which  defiled  the  apostate  Papal  Church,  and  had  especially  ac- 


74  THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION. 

cumulated  in  the  service  of  the  mass.  And  no  less  are  they  to  be  com- 
mended for  having  labored  so  faithfully  to  purify  not  only  the  creed  but 
the  cultus  of  the  Church  of  all  those  vile  corruptions,  sparing  none  of 
them, — not  even  the  exorcism  and  unction  which  Zwingli  had  retained  in 
his  Baptismal  service.  But  in  all  they  thus  did  they  were  animated,  not  by 
a  spirit  of  mere  fanatical  opposition  to  Romish  practices  as  Romish,  but 
by  their  conviction  that  those  practices  were  utterly  opposed  to  the  Word 
of  God,  to  Apostolic  order,  and  to  the  pure  primitive  customs  of  the 
Church.  And  unless  the  rebuke  and  abrogation  of  errors  and  usages 
which  are  flagrantly  irreconcilable  with  the  doctrines  of  Christ  and  His 
Apostles,  and  with  that  pure  worship  which  He  instituted,  can  be  stig- 
matized as  radical  fanaticism,  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church  are 
not  liable  to  this  reproach.  Unless  the  earnest  and  faithful  endeavor  to 
liberate  the  Church  from  the  bondage  of  degrading  hierarchical  supersti- 
tions, and  to  restore  to  it  freedom  to  worship  God  as  the  Apostles  and 
earliest  Christians  worshipped  Him,  can  be  branded  as  extreme  spiritual- 
istic bigotry  against  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Romish  Church, 
those  fathers  deserve  better  at  our  hands  than  to  have  their  reputation 
tarnished  by  such  damaging  reflections  as  have  been  cast  upon  them  by 
some  of  the  more  ardent  advocates  of  the  ritualistic  measures.  Not  only 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  but  its  most  intimate  fellow  the  Palatinate 
Liturgy,  prove  by  their  pervading  spirit  and  tone,  by  what  they  say  as 
well  as  by  their  silence,  that  those  condemnatory  criticisms  are  most  un. 
warranted  and  unjust. 

So  far  from  there  being  any  real  ground  for  such  charges  or  imputa- 
tions, it  is  only  necessary  to  know  the  history  of  those  men,  their  life  and 
character,  their  aims  and  works,  to  be  coavinced  that  they  not  only  were 
free  from  such  prejudices  and  revolutionary  radicalism,  but  that  they 
possessed  the  most  important  and  desirable  qualifications  for  the  particu- 
lar duties  which  the  times  and  wants  of  the  Church  imposed  upon  them. 
By  their  pure  Christian  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  entire  course  of  train- 
ing, education,  habits  of  thought,  and  studies;  they  seem  to  have  been 
specially  prepared  for  the  oflaces  they  were  called  to  perform.  It  need 
not  be  regarded  as  an  invidious  disparagement  to  say,  that  the  German 
Reformed  Church  in  this  country  has  not  now  two  men  as  fully  fitted  for 
the  work  of  preparing  a  truly  evangelical  Reformed  Liturgy,  as  were 
Ursinus  and  Olevianus.  They  had  always  been  accustomed  to  liturgical 
worship,  that  is  to  what  all  but  extreme  ritualists  have  ever  been  willing 
to  recognize  as  such.  There  was  no  period  in  their  history  when  they 
were  not  liturgical.  Hence  there  was  no  necessity  for  their  conversion 
in  this  respect.  Hence,  also,  they  were  less  liable  to  be  carried  to  such 
unwarrantable  extremes  as  are  frequently  run  into  by  new  converts,  whose 


THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  75 

zeal  is  apt  to  outstrip  knowledge.  For  tliera  the  subject  was  not  one 
whose  captivating  novelty  overpowered  their  judgment  and  "  carried  them 
by  an  inexorable  force  "  its  own  way.  In  this,  already,  it  must  be  admit- 
ted that  they  possessed  a  great  advantage.  Very  susceptible,  and  especi- 
ally unsettled  minds  are  likely  to  be  overwhelmingly  impressed  by  a 
first  attendance  upon  an  elaborate  ritualistic  mode  of  worship,  conducted 
in  Romish  style.  And  persons  of  this  temperament  and  peculiar  frame, 
particularly  if  they  were  under  the  influence  of  a  morbid  dissatisfaction 
with  the  simpler  and  less  sensuous  services  of  an  evangelical  Church, 
would  be  in  danger  of  quite  losing  their  heart  and  reason  both  amidst 
the  gorgeous  ceremonial,  the  chorals  and  antiphonies,the  sacerdotal  chant- 
ings  and  intonations,  and  all  the  multiplied  aesthetic  accompaniments 
calculated  to  delight  the  eye,  to  ravish  the  ear,  and  bring  their  entire 
sensational  being  under  a  spell  of  enchantment. 

But  the  ruling  spirits  of  the  Reformed  Church  during  the  latter  half 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  were  men  of  quite  a  different  character.  From 
childhood  they  had  been  familiar  with  Romish  worship  in  all  its  most  ela- 
borate ritualistic  arrangements.  Some  of  them  had  often  personally  offici- 
ated, or  at  least  participated  in  it  all.  The  antiphonies,  the  litanies,  the 
Gregorian  chants,  they  knew  by  heart.  With  the  order  of  the  Romish 
mass  they  were  perfectly  acquaioted.  But  they  also  had  learned  to  know 
that  for  none  of  the  distinctive  parts  of  this  elaborate  ceremonial  wor- 
ship, could  there  be  found  any  warrant  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles  and  the  primitive  Church.  They  were  the  sad 
witnesses  likewise  of  the  many  pernicious  moral  consequences  which,  as 
bad  fruit  from  a  corrupt  tree,  had  sprung  from  those  extreme  ritualistic  de- 
partures from  the  simplicity  of  original  Apostolic  worship.  And  they  had 
carefully  and  honestly  traced  all  those  mischievous  departures  to  those 
innovations  upon  primitive  worship  which  had  gained  ascendancy  during 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries;  that  period  when,  already,  the  Church 
had  begun  to  delight  in  arrangements  and  services  %cliich  were  designed 
and  calculated  to  produce  effect  hy  outward  means,  ^'till  in  the  end  amidst 
the  solemn  mummery  no  room  was  left  at  all  for  genuine  piety  ^  Whilst, 
therefore,  they  were  not  so  blinded  by  prejudice  or  animosity  against  the 
Romish  system,  that  they  fanatically  abolished  every  thing,  simply  be- 
cause it  might  stand  in  some  connection  with  that  system;  they  were  able 
to  discern  its  errors  and  corruptions,  and  had  both  courage  and  intelli- 
gence to  reject  them.  They  could  prove  all  things;  they  held  fast 
only  to  that  which  was  good.  There  were  fanatics  in  those  times  who 
pursued  a  more  destructive  course;  '' Grnostics,  Phrygian  Montanists,"  &c. 
But  our  Reformed  fathers  were  in  no  sympathy  with  any  such  wild  fana- 
tical revolutionizers.     What  they  attempted  and  accomplished,   was  un- 


76  THE   LITURGICAL  QUESTION. 

dertakea  in  the  spirit  of  a  calm,  dispassionate  conservative  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  Church  as  He  established  it;  and  was  car- 
ried out  with  a  docile  conservative  determination  to  restore  His  Church, 
as  far  as  lay  in  their  power,  to  original  order  and  purity,  in  faith  and 
practice. 

There  is  yet  another  fact  to  be  emphasized  in  this  connection.  Those 
who  were  commissioned  to  provide  the  original  Order  of  Worship  for  the 
German  Reformed  Church  in  the  sixteenth  century,  had  access  to  many 
Protestant  Liturgies  then  already  in  use.  And  it  is  known  that  in  the 
pi;eparation  of  the  Palatinate  Liturgy,  of  1563,  those  earlier  Ordersof  Wor- 
ship were  carefully  consulted.  With  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  the 
more  strictly  Lutheran  mode  of  worship  they  were  perfectly  familiar. 
They  knew,  especially,  how  closely  its  service  for  the  Lord's  supper  ad- 
hered to  the  Romish  mass,  including  the  major  and  minor  doxologies,  the 
litany,  and  a  certain  amount  of  ritualistic  ceremonial.  With  the  peculi- 
arities of  the  Episcopal  services  in  England,  as  set  forth  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  as  then  in  use,  they  were  also  acquainted,  and  probably 
were  well  aware  of  the  alterations  which  had  been  made  in  those  services 
at  the  suggestion  of  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr,  such  as  the  omission  of  the 
use  of  oil  in  Baptism,  the  unction  of  the  sick,  the  prayers  for  the  souls  of 
the  departed,  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  consecration  of  the 
Eucharist,  the  prayer  of  oblation,  and  some  other  things  which  seemed  to 
savor  of  Romish  superstition.  In  a  word,  they  were  thoroughly  informed 
in  regard  to  the  entire  liturgical  literature  and  labors  of  their  times,  and 
had  all  at  their  command  in  the  preparation  of  their  work. 

How  unjust,  therefore,  to  represent  them,  whether  by  assertions  or 
insinuations,  as  lacking  the  requisite  means  and  qualifications  for  such  a 
work !  And  how  wholly  unwarranted  the  disparaging  criticisms  passed 
upon  the  Liturgy  which  they  furnished  for  their  Church,  on  the  assump- 
tion of  their  want  of  qualifications  Surely  such  criticisms  are  not  entitled 
to  much  weight,  and  should  not  be  allowed  to  prejudice  our  minds  against 
the  Reformed  Agenda  of  the  sixteenth  century,  or  to  lessen  our  estimate 
of  the  competency  of  their  authors  for  the  liturgical  labors  performed  by 
them.  On  the  contrary,  the  facts  above  stated,  and  of  which  we  defy 
contradiction,  prove  them  to  have  been  abundantly  fitted  for  the  work,  and 
to  have  possessed  ample  means  and  op'fortunities  for  its  faithful  perform- 
ance. Of  course,  no  reasonable  critic  will  lay  stress  upon  any  peculiarities 
of  style  or  phraseology  which  may  be  found  in  Liturgies  prepared  300 
years  ago,  and  in  which  the  main  thing  is  the  matter  they  contain,  and 
the  principles  on  which  they  are  based. 

To  those  who  are  aware  how  often  and  vehemently  the  author  of  the 
"  Vindication,"  and  a  few  who  have  followed  his  unhappy  example,  have 


THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  77 

■written  and  spoken  in  terms  of  disapproval  and  depreciation  of  some  of 
the  more  distinctive  features  of  Evangelical  Prote-tantism,  this  defence 
of  the  qualifications  of  such  men  as  Olevianus,  Ursinus,  and  their  more 
active  associates,  will  not  seem  superfluous.  Confidence  in  their  ability  to 
do  well  what  they  were  required  to  do,  is  indispensable  to  a  due  estimate  in 
the  results  of  their  labors,  and  to  confidence  in  those  results.  To  shake 
this  confidence,  efforts  have  been  made  to  exhibit  them  as  disqualified  for 
what  they  undertook,  especially  in  the  department  of  Church  cultus. 
Their  Liturgy  is  condemned  because  they  are  affirmed  to  have  lacked  the 
ability  and  the  means  for  such  a  work.  That  this  mode  of  argument  has 
been  honestly  employed,  may  not  be  questioned.  No  one  may  doubt  for 
a  moment  that  Dr.  Nevin  and  Dr.  Harbaugh  really  believe  that  Ursinus 
and  Olevianus,  as  well  as  Farel  and  Calvin,  were  not  competent  to  prepare 
♦'true  liturgies"  for  the  Reformed  Church;  that  they  had  no  proper 
idea  of  liturgical  worship ;  that  their  whole  education  and  all  their  circum- 
stances were  insuperable  barriers  in  the  way  of  their  rising  to  the  true 
celestial  height  of  a  genuine  Christian  cultus.  But  whilst  the  sincerity 
with  which  this  opinion  is  held  by  them  may  not  be  challenged,  we  beg 
leave  to  pronounce  the  opinion  itself  erroneous,  destitute  of  all  founda- 
tion in  facts,  and  not  very  modestly  entertained  or  avowed. 

This  point  then  being  settled,  we  can,  with  unbiased  minds,  enter  upon 
an  examination  of  the  manner  in  which  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed 
Church  proceeded  with  their  liturgical  labors,  and  will  be  able  to  form  a 
more  correct  and  impartial  estimate  of  the  character  and  merits  of  the  sys- 
tem of  worship  which  they  established.  And  I  think  that  the  system  will 
not  be  found  that  bald  thing,  "  collection  of  dry  forms,"  of  miserable 
"  mechanical  helps,"  which  Dr.  Nevin  has  the  presumption  and  irrever- 
ence to  style  them  now  again,  after  four  years'  reflection,  in  this  misnatned 
"  Vindication." 

A  very  remarkable  fact  meets  us  at  the  outset  of  this  particular  inquiry. 
Let  us  approach  it  by  way  of  supposition.  It  will  be  admitted  now,  that 
the  authors  of  the  first  liturgy  of  our  Church,  in  1563,  would  be  likely  to 
avail  themselves  of  all  the  helps  within  their  reach.  As  earnest,  honest, 
thoughtful  men,  they  would  seek  counsel  of  all  the  pious  and  learned  men 
of  their  day  in  sympathy  with  the  Reformation,  and  above  all  would  care- 
fully study  any  existing  liturgies  at  hand.  What,  then,  if  among  the 
liturgies  of  that  particular  period  there  was  one  closely  resembling  in  spirit 
groundwork,  and  special  structure,  the  new  "Order  of  Worship,"  for 
whose  success  Dr.  Nevin  struggles  so  desperately?  What  if  they  not 
only  knew  of  a  service-book  of  this  character,  but  also  its  authors  or 
compilers ;  and  what  if  they  were  well  acquainted  with  all  the  arguments 
employed  in  "  Vindication  "  of  its  peculiar  character  ?     Would  it  not  be 


78  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

very  significant /or  us  if,  though  well  acquainted  with  such  an  order,  with 
its  nuraeroas  responses,  its  alternating  recitation  of  the  Psalms,  its  Lord's 
supper  service,  so  closely  patterned  after  the  Romish  Mass,  &c.  &c., — they 
should  have  totally  discarded  its  type  of  worship,  and  have  adopted  another 
onl//  "  materially  and  essentially"  different  from  it  ? 

Such,  however,  was  exactly  the  case,  and  that  is  precisely  what  they 
did.  In  1550,  bp.  Cranmer,  the  primate  of  the  Church  of  England, 
yielding  to  some  objections  made  against  the  Liturgy  then  in  use,  under- 
took a  revision  of  the  work.  The  book  thus  revised  was  adopted  in  1551. 
This  early  Episcopal  Liturgy,  as  intimated  above,  must  have  been  known 
to  Frederick  III.,  and  to  his  favorite  theologians,  Ursinus  and  Olevianus. 
Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr  had  assisted  in  the  Revision,  and  it  was  pub- 
lished, as  shown  by  the  date,  twelve  years  before  the  Palatinate  Liturgy. 
Moreover,  there  was  frequent  correspondence  between  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  the  Continent  and  the  chief  theologians  of  the  Church  of 
England.  And  yet  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  did  not  follow  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  either  in  its  general  plan  or  in  any  of  its  details.  It  is 
true  it  had  not  then  yet  attained  to  its  present  form.  Notwithstanding  the 
important  modifications  of  the  first  edition,  procured  by  Bucer  and  Martyr, 
in  the  way  of  purging  it  of  some  Popish  superstitions,  not  all  of  these  were 
removed.  Here,  then,  was  an  "  Order  of  Worship  "  which  came  strongly 
commended  to  the  consideration  of  the  Palatinate  Reformers.  Outwardly 
considered,  there  might  seem  to  have  been  many  reasons  for  adopting  it 
as  a  model.  Men  of  great  learning,  influence  and  renown  had  labored  on 
it.  The  adoption  of  its  scheme  would  have  served  to  promote  ecclesiasti- 
cal unity,  and  would  have  won  favor  for  the  little  Church  of  the  Palatinate 
with  men  of  high  position  and  great  power  in  England.  But  none  of  these 
things  moved  our  fathers.  They  were  so  blind  that  they  could  not  discern 
the  superior  beauties  of  a  cultus  whose  model  Dr.  Nevin  extols  as  the 
only  one  deserving  the  name.  They  were  so  foolish  as  to  discard  the 
opportunity  afforded  them  of  escaping  the  scorpion  lash  of  his  sarcasm, 
and  of  being  regaled  with  the  nectar  of  his  benign  approbation.  Had 
Ursinus  and  Olevianus  but  enjoyed  the  light  which,  after  so  long  and 
mournful  an  eclipse  has  now  at  last  illumed  the  wretched  "  pulpit  hand- 
book," ''mechanical  dictionary,"  "  hortus  siccus,"  worship  of  the  poor 
misled,  benighted  Reformed  Church  !  But,  alas,  they  lived  and  died 
three  centuries  too  soon  !  Or  else,  it  might  be  suggested,  the  radiance  of 
that  light  was  too  long  withheld.  Too  long,  especially,  for  the  generations 
of  our  fathers  and  brethren  deprived  thus  of  the  privilege  and  joy  of  wor- 
shipping their  God  and  Saviour  in  the  only  fit  and  decent  way,  the  only 
acceptable  and  edifying  way.  Only  imagine  Dr.  Nevin's  estimate  of  their 
mode  of  worship  to  be  corrc  )t,  and  then  think  of  that  estimate  applying 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  79 

to  all  wlio  have  gone  before  us  in  our  Church  back  to  the  days  of 
Frederick  III.,  and  to  the  time  when  our  fathers  worshipped  in  their 
sanctuaries  in  Heidelberg  !  Without  a  vicarious  priesthood,  (for  it  must 
be  kept  in  mind  that  Dr.  Nevin  holds  in  derision  the  declaration  of  pardon 
used  by  our  fathers),  without  an  altar  of  propitiatory  sacrifice,  without 
grand  services  like  those  in  the  new  "  Order  of  Worship,"  they  are  set 
before  as  objects  exciting  our  deepest  commiseration.  Wretched  Pala- 
tines !  What  had  they  done  that  those  set  over  them  for  instruction  and 
guidance  should  only  prove  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  causing  both  to 
plunge  into  the  ditch  !  For  what  Dr.  Nevin  says  of  that  style  of  worship, 
which  was  adopted  by  our  Church  in  1563,  involves  all  this.  And  he 
himself  makes  no  exceptions.  (See  Liturgical  Q.,  and  "  Vindication"  p. 
51).  Doubtless,  it  is  a  grievous  ofi"ence  to  "  slander  "  the  living,  and  no 
one  should  be  excused  for  wilfully  committing  it.  But  is  it  not  a  vastly- 
more  heinous  thing  to  cast  dishonor  on  the  dead  ?  To  speak  lightly  or 
contemptuously  of  a  brother  is  reprehensible.  But  what  is  it  to  hold  up 
a  Church  to  mockery  ? 

Still  another  fact  of  similar  import  must  be  noted.  Besides  having  the 
Anglican  cultus  before  them,  the  fathers  and  founders  of  the  Reformed 
Church  were  perfectly  familiar  with  the  cultus  which  prevailed  in  strictly 
Lutheran  Churches.  Many  considerations  would  prompt  them  to  copy 
closely  after  the  Lutheran  pattern.  The  Reformers  of  the  Palatinate,  es- 
pecially, might  feel  themselves  urged  to  do  so.  Their  country  had  just 
rejected  extreme  or  rigid  Lutheranism,  and  might  even  have  been  regarded 
as  in  some  sense  Lutheran  still.  By  their  national  and  ecclesiastical  rela- 
tionships to  Lutheran  German  States  around  them,  as  well  as  by  a  desire 
to  conciliate  as  many  friends  as  possible,  they  would  no  doubt  be  inclined 
to  avoid  all  diversities  in  the  mode  of  worship  not  deemed  essential. 
Furthermore,  though  in  some  of  the  leading  forms  the  Lutheran  Liturgies 
bore  a  strong  resemblance  to  those  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  both 
having  followed  the  same  model,  they  were  more  simple,  and  so  far 
approximate  more  closely  to  the  primitive  practice.  That  considerations 
like  these  would  have  prevailed,  had  not  stronger  convictions  of  truth  and 
right  prevented  it,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  If  Ursinus  and  Olevianus,  and 
other  Reformed  theologians  of  that  period,  could  have  incorporated  in 
their  Liturgies  a  Lord's  Supper  service  like  that  practised  in  strictly 
Lutheran  Churches  in  their  day,  they  would  have  done  so.  Their  adop- 
tion of  an  order  "materially  and  essentially"  different,  proves  how  deep 
and  strong  their  convictions  must  have  been,  that  the  Lutheran  cultus 
even  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  only  pattern  and  principles  which 
should  rule  in  the  case.  And  it  must  be  acknowledged  by  all  whose  mind 
and  heart  are  not  so  wholly  prepossessed   against  the  plain  testimony  of 


80  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

fiicts,  that  this  refusal  to  follow  a  model,  by  the  adoption  of  which  they 
might  have  escaped  contumely  and  reproach  as  bitter  as  that  now  heaped 
upon  thos3  who  are  striving  to  vindicate  their  course  and  to  keep  their 
Church  from  repudiating  the  principles  which  they  adopted,  is  of  very 
great  significance  in  the  present  controversy. 

Let  these  two  facts  then  be  distinctly  borne  in  mind.  The  fathers  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church  were  perfectly  familiar  with  an  order  of 
worship  similar  in  all  essential  respects,  though  in  some  important  points 
less  objectionable,  on  evangelical  grounds,  to  that  so  vehemently  advocated 
by  Dr.  Nevin.  But  although  so  familiar  with  it,  and  with  all  the 
considerations  which  might  be  urged  in  its  favor,  they  unqualifiedly  re- 
jected it. 

Having  thus  seen  how  inconsistent  with  historical  facts,  and  therefore 
how  unjust  and  indefensible  the  disparaging  criticisms  of  Dr.  Nevin  upon 
the  authors  of  our  primitive  Liturgy  are,  we  are  ready  to  inquire  more 
particularly  into  the  precise  character  and  basis  of  that  cultus,  and  to 
estimate  its  merits  with  unprejudiced  minds.  Why  did  the  fathers  of  the 
Reformed  Church,  not  only  in  the  Palatinate,  but  in  all  other  countries, 
refuse  to  adopt  a  mode  of  worship  like  that  of  the  Anglican  and  strictly 
Lutheran  Churches?  And  why  did  they  prefer  one  of  a  more  simple,  less 
ritualistic  type  ? 

The  first  thing  that  arrests  attention  in  the  inquiry  is,  that  the  same  fun- 
damental principle  teas  adopted  in  providing  an  Order  of  Worship  for  the 
Church,  as  in  drawing  up  a  system  of  doctrine.  Both  were  made  to  rest 
upon  divine  authority,  and  to  be  in  essential,  and  as  much  as  possible,  in 
formal  harmony  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  The  testimony  of  tradition 
was  not  discarded.  But  it  was  of  secondary  authority,  and  strictly  tried 
by  that  touch-stone  of  truth,  which  tradition  itself  declared  to  be  the  stand- 
ard. Even  the  Romish  Church  acknowledged  the  divine  inspiration  of 
the  Bible,  and  admitted  its  authority,  though  not  its  sole  authority,  in 
matters  of  faith  and  practice.  But  if  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  what  the 
Church  had  all  along  declared  concerning  them,  an  inspired  revelation  of 
the  grace  and  will  of  God,  it  was  legitimately  assumed  that  their  authority 
must  be  supreme  in  reference  to  all  matters  pertaining  to  religion.  And 
as  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  must  be  the  same  in  the  sixteenth 
century  as  in  the  first  century,  and  that  meaning  could  as  well  be  ascer- 
tained, at  least  in  regard  to  all  essential  points,  in  the  later  as  in  the  earlier 
period,  it  was  fairly  assumed  by  the  founders  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
that  it  was  possible  for  them  to  discover  what  doctrines  and  customs  of 
their  time  were  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  what  were  not. 
They  maintained  also,  and  with  equal  propriety  and  justice,  that  true  sub- 
mission to  Church  authority  did  not  require  them  to  accept  of  any  arbi- 


THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  81 

trary  interpretation  wliich  might  be  put  upon  the  acknowledged  divine 
standard  of  faith  and  practice,  in  manifest  contradicti£»n  to  the  plain  and 
obvious  import  of  that  standard.  If,  in  the  course  of  time,  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Church  had  degenerated  through  perversion  or  corrupt  ad- 
ditions, the  Reformers  held  that  they  were  not  only  not  bound  by  such 
departures  from  the  truth,  but  that  it  was  their  duty  to  expose,  and,  as  far 
as  possible,  to  correct  them.  Hence,  in  matters  of  doctrine,  they  went  to 
the  fountain-head,  and  derived  directly  from  the  Word  of  God  those  truths 
and  facts  which  were  deemed  necessary  to  Christian  faith.  Even  whilst 
accepting  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  sym- 
bols, they  refused  assent  to  the  errors  which  pretended  to  be  based  upon 
those  symbols,  and  contended  for  such  an  interpretation  of  their  several 
articles  as  was  warranted  by  the  Scriptures,  and  by  the  primitive  faith  of 
the  Church.  In  like  manner  in  matters  pertaining  to  public  worship,  they 
made  the  Word  of  God  their  rule,  and  held  that  it  furnished  instructions 
and  examples  in  accordance  with  which  the  worship  of  the  Christian 
Church  should  be  regulated  and  arranged.  They  did  not  arbitrarily  and 
radically  discard  the  testimony  and  practice  of  the  ages  immediately  suc- 
ceeding that  of  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Church.  But  instead  of  taking 
the  traditions  of  those  later  ages  as  a  rule  for  determining  the  principles 
and  mode  of  Apostolic  worship,  they  reversed  the  process,  and  made  the  lat- 
ter the  test  of  what  should  be  rejected  or  allowed  in  the  former.  With 
such  subordinate  helps  as  the  second,  third  and  fourth  centuries  might 
furnish,  they  endeavored  to  ascertain  the  true  Apostolic  order.  But  in 
pursuing  this  investigation  they  did  not  allow  themselves  to  be  blinded  or 
captivated  by  the  garish  attractions  of  those  false  systems  of  worship  which 
met  them  on  their  way.  They  ever  kept  in  mind  that  the  true  object  of 
their  search  was,  not  a  cultus  which  might  be  vindicated  by  appeals  to  the 
third  and  fourth  century,  or  commended  by  a  "highly  cultivated  ajsthetic 
taste,"  but  that  order  of  Christian  worship  which  was  originally  instituted 
in  the  Church,  and  which  had  the  sanction  of  apostolic  and  primitive  pre- 
cept and  example. 

Guided  by  this  just  and  safe  rule,  a  rule  furnished  and  approved  by  the 
infallible  Word,  if  not  by  an  arbitrary  and  arrogant  but  fallible  church, 
our  ecclesiastical  fathers  soon  and  easily  found  what  they  sought  for.  Not 
only  did  they  discover  some  broad  and  general  basis  of  worship,  which  by 
its  very  breadth  and  vagueness  might  justify  the  exercise  of  a  great 
variety  of  taste  in  rearing  a  superstructure  upon  it.  In  numerous  decla- 
rations of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  such  as  those  in  Matth.  vi.  5-18;  xviii. 
20;  Luke  iv.  16,  etc.;  i.  43;  vi.  6;  John  iv.  19-24,  and  in  many  direc- 
tions and  incidental  statements  recorded  in  the  Epistles,  such  as  1  Cor.  i. 
21;  xiv.  15;  Gal.  i.  6,  etc. ;  Eph.  v.  19,  20;  Col.  iii.  16;  Heb,  x.  25; 
6 


82  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

xiii.  15,  as  well  as  in  fr3quent  illustrations  furnislied  of  the  actual  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  Church,  such  as  are  met  with  in  the  account  of  the 
services  connected  with  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper,  and  in  pas- 
sages like  Acts  i.  13,  14,  24;  ii.  1,  etc.,  46;  iv.  23,  etc.;  vi.  4;  xviii.  4, 
and  wherever  allusion  is  made  to  the  mode  of  •public  worship,  they  found 
both  in  the  form  of  precept  and  example,  distinct  and  explicit  intimations 
in  regard  to  what  the  Head  of  the  Church  and  His  •immediate  Apostles 
wished  to  be  considered  essential  to  true  Christian  worship. 

Above  all,  they  saw  the  very  marked  distinction  at  once  established  and 
made  prominent  between  the  formal  ritualistic  character  of  the  Jewish 
cultus  and  the  freedom,  spirituality  (Dr.  Neviu  might  call  it  "  spiritualis- 
ticism"),  and  great  simplicity  (Dr.  N.  would  condemn  it  as  '■'  baldness  ") 
of  primitive  Apostolic  worship.  They  saw  not  only  that  the  latter  was  not 
modelled,  in  any  respect,  after  that  of  the  Temple,  but  that  even  so  far  as 
it  adopted  the  usages  of  the  synagogue,  it  was  done  in  a  free  way,  and  not 
in  exact  slavish  imitation  of  those  usages,  done  also  at  the  time  to  a  large 
extent  in  the  spirit  of  accommodation  to  the  habits  and  prejudices  of  Jewish 
converts.  In  the  early  Christian  Church  they  saw  no  visible  altar  of  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice,  no  visible  sacrifice  of  propitiation,  no  priestly  caste  to 
•mediate  with  such  offerings  between  the  Lord  and  His  people.  The  peo- 
ple themselves  were  freely  admitted  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  in  a  deep 
spiritual  sense,  by  the  blood  of  Christ  shed  once  for  all.  Instead  of  the 
altar  of  atonement  and  bloody  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament,  they  sav^ 
the  ^^ Table  of  the  Lord"  established  as  a  place  of  sacred  commemoration 
of  Him  who  had  given  His  life  a  ransom  for  many,  and  of  hallowed  com- 
munion by  faith  with  Him  who  was  their  Life,  "whom  not  seeing  they 
loved,  and  in  whom  *  *  believing  they  rejoiced."  And  in  that  sacra- 
mental (not  sacrifcial)  table  they  saw  the  Church  supplied  with  what 
was  a  most  abundant  compensation  for  the  removal  of  the  ancient  bloody 
altar  of  atonement  (Heb.  xiii.  10-16,  not  verse  10  alone  as  Dr.  Nevin 
takes  it).  In  the  early  Christian  Church  they  saw  that  "  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  "  read  and  preached  was  the  spiritual  centre  around  which  the  ser- 
vice revolved,  and  which  was  used  as  the  chief  means  of  common  edifica- 
tion. "  Christ  crucified  and  risen  was  the  luminous  centre  whence  a  sanc- 
tifying light  was  shed  on  all  the  relations  of  life.  Gushing  forth  from  a 
full  heart,  the  preaching  went  to  the  heart;  and  springing  from  an  inward 
life,  it  hindlcd  life,  a  new  Divine  life,  in  susceptible  hearers.  It  was  re- 
vival preaching  in  the  purest  sense."  (Schaff's  Hist,  of  the  Chr.  Church, 
I.  119.)  This  they  found  illustrated  beyond  all  contradiction  by  the  ex- 
ample of  all  the  Apostles.  Wherever  the  Apostles  went  they  made 
"  preaching  the  Gospel "  their  chief  work.  And  this  not  only  in  their 
labors  among  unconverted  multitudes,  but  in  the  assemblies  of  believers. 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  83 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  Epistles,  whether  of  Paul,  of  Peter,  of 
James  or  John,  they  found  the  Word,  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  con- 
stantly and  unqualifiedly  represented  as  the  chief,  the  most  efficient  means, 
as  well  of  regeneration  as  of  sanctification.  And  although  our  fathers 
knew  well  by  what  specious  arguments  the  Papists  attempted  to  explain 
away  these  plain  facts,  and  endeavored  to  bind  all  saving  grace  to  such 
acts  as  tied  the  conveyance  of  that  grace  to  sacredotal  functions ;  they 
knew  also  that  those  arguments  were  utterly  without  Scriptural  foundation. 
Otherwise  how  could  St.  Paul  have  said  in  language  which  hyper-churchism 
tries  in  vain  to  explain  away  :  "  I  thank  God  I  baptized  none  of  you,  *  *  * 
for  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel "  (1  Cor.  i. 
14-18)  ?  How  could  have  St.  Peter  have  written  :  "  Being  horn  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which 
liveth  and  abideth  forever.  ''"'  *  *  And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the 
Gospel  is  preached  unto  you."  "  Wherefore,  *  *  *  as  new-born  babes, 
desire  the  sincere  milk  of  ^/te  Word  that  ye  may  groio  thereby?^'  How 
could  St.  John  and  St.  James  both  have  written  epistles,  which  through- 
out assume  this  great  and  blessed  truth,  that  the  Word,  the  Gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  chief  Divinely  appointed  means,  first 
of  awakening  then  of  promoting  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul?  Thus  it 
was  manifest  that  however  Divine,  sacred,  supernatural  the  character  of 
the  Holy  Sacraments,  and  however  important  and  essential  their  office, 
they  were  not,  neither  was  the  table  on  which  one  of  them,  the  Holy  Sup- 
per, was  spread,  '^the  Shehinah'"  from  which  light  and  grace  was  radiated 
and  diiFused  through  all  the  place  where  primitive  believers  worshipped. 

Next  to  this  our  ecclesiastical  fathers  learned  the  important  and  note- 
worthy fact,  that  the  rigid  enforcement  of  prescribed  forms  of  worship  by 
the  Romish  Church,  though  in  harmony  with  fourth  Century  principles 
and  usages,  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  primitive  practice.  For  in  the 
Apostolic  Church  they  found  that  while  some  such  forms  may  not  have 
been  despised,  there  loas  no  certain  evidence  that  they  were  statedly  used; 
on  the  other  hand,  however,  there  was  incontrovertible  jiroof  that  fre<i 
prayer  icas  the  more  common  practice.  (See  passages  referred  to  above 
Also  Schafi"'s  Hist,  of  the  Apost.  Church,  p.  562,  and  Hist,  of  Chr.  Ch.,  1. 
120).  Indeed  they  had  abundant  reason  to  believe  that  whatever  forms 
may  have  to  a  limited  extent  been  recognized  and  used  by  the  early  Church 
they  ivcre  long  regarded  as  subordinate  to  Christian  freedom.  (See 
Ubrard,  Kirchen-u.,  Dogm.-Gesch.,  I.,  40-42).  Putting  all  these  facts 
together,  therefore,  the  order  of  early  Christian  worship,  as  indicated  in 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  furnished  a  full  and  adequate  model  according  to 
which  the  worship  of  the  Church  as  Reformed  might  be  patterned.  That 
model,  in  preference  to  any  of  those  doubtful  improvements  which  the 


84  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

fancy  or  the  folly  of  possibly  well-meaning  but  presumptuous  men,  had 
added  to  it,  was  the  model  adopted  in  the  spirit  of  docile  Christian  liberty 
by  our  ecclesiastical  fathers.  And  we  may  challenge  the  advocates  of  the 
new  Order  of  Worship  to  show  any  material  or  essential  disagreement 
between  the  mode  of  worship  exhibited  in  the  old  Palatinate  and  kindred 
Liturgies,  and  that  of  the  primitive  Apostolic  Church. 

With  the  distinctive  features  of  this  mode  of  worship,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  members  of  our  Church  generally  are  sufficiently 
acquainted.  Besides,  the  great  point  at  issue  in  the  case  is  conceded  by 
the  advocates  of  the  .new  Order  of  Worship.  It  will  only  be  needful, 
therefore,  to  keep  the  simple  outline  in  view.  The  regular  Lord's  day 
service  was  opened  with  an  evangelical  salutation^  then  a  hymn  was  sung; 
next  followed  an  exhortation  to  prayer,  and  a  prayer  which  while  the 
Liturgy  contained  a  prescribed  form  which  was  at  first  commonly,  if  not 
always  used,  yet  might  be  firee,  and  which  in  the  course  of  some  years, 
through  the  legitimate  operation  of  the  Reformed  principle  and  spirit 
actually  yielded  to  free  prayer.  As  to  the  j^lace  occupied  by  the  minister 
during  these  devotional  services^  the  old  Liturgy  contains  no  direction. 
But  the  impression  left  by  what  is  said  concerning  the  sermon  in  connec- 
tion with  the  directions  concerning  prayer,  is  that  the  minister  occupied 
the  pulpit  during  all  the  services.  And  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  this  was  the 
common  early  practice  in  the  Reformed  Churches,  strictly  so  called. 
After  the  prayer  the  sermon  was  preached,  and  in  connection  with  it  a 
portion  of  the  Scripture  read  as  a  text.  No  lessons  were  prescribed,  the 
minister  being  left  free  in  the  choice  of  his  text,  excepting  that  he  was 
directed  to  adapt  himself  to  special  occasions. 

The  sermon  was  followed  by  the  public  confession  of  sin,  which  took  the 
place  of  auricular  private  confession  in  the  Romish  Church,  and  the  com- 
f or  ting  assurance  of  pardon,  which  took  the  place  of  sacerdotal  absolution. 
The  confession  was  spoken  by  the  minister,  who  included  himself  in  it,  the 
congregation  following  heartily  in  silence,  ("let  every  one  say  with  me  in 
his  heart,"  is  the  phrase  used)  as  the  language  plainly  implies,  and  as 
universal  practice,  so  far  as  known,  shows  was  the  case.  During  this  part 
of  the  services  the  people  stoo(J.  In  the  '^comforting  assurance"  pro- 
nounced by  the  minister,  every  expression  was  carefully  avoided  which 
might  lead  people  to  think  that  the  forgiveness  of  sin  was  in  any  way  de- 
pendent upon  the  formal  announcement  made.  On  the  contrary,  the 
declaration  clearly  implied,  went  on  the  assicmption,  that  pardon  had 
already  been  granted,  and  that  the  declaration  of  it  was  made  not  as  some- 
thing necessary  to  the  conveyance  of  such  pardon,  but  only  as  a  proper 
means  of  confirming  the  hearts  of  timid,  troubled  penitents  in  the  posses- 
sion of  it.    In  a  word,  and  this  is  a  fact  worthy  of  earnest  consideration  in 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  85 

tlie  present  ease,  the  Confession  of  sin,  and  accompanying  declaration  of 
pardon,  in  tlie  Reformed  Churcli  wholly  and  most  designedly  excluded  the 
idea  that  there  loas  any  thing  sacramental  in  the  act,  in  the  specific  sense 
of  that  term.  And  as  a  consequence,  the  peculiar  form  of  this  part  of  Re- 
formed worship,  served,  and  was  undoubtedly  intended  to  serve,  as  an 
emphatic  practical  repudiation  oi\)Ot]x  ordination  sindi  pennance  as  Romish 
sacraments. 

In  regard  to  this  form  of  confession,  etc.,  it  is  proper  to  add,  that  while 
it  was  commonly  used  every  Sunday  at  the  morning  service,  at  least  during 
the  earlier  years  of  our  Church,  the  rubrics  of  the  Liturgy  seems  to  have 
allowed  some  option  in  regard  to  its  use,  requiring,  however,  ^'^ especially'^ 
that  it  be  used  at  the  service  preparatory  to  the  Communion. 

The  Confession  was  followed  by  singing,  and  the  whole  service^closed 
with  a  benediction. 

The  Preparatory  and  the  Communion  services  are  constructed  upon  the 
same  principles,  and  pervaded  by  the  same  simplicity  as  that  for  the  Lord's 
Day.  In  the  former,  after  an  appropriate  sermon  (mark  that),  the  com- 
municants rising  in  their  seats,  and  sometimes  even  gathering  around  the 
chancel,  in  which  the  communion  table  stood,  were  addressed  in  reference 
to  the  three  points  laid  down  in  the  answer  to  the  second  question  of  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  viz.:  their  sense  of  and  sorrow  for  sin,  their  hearty 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  their  sincere  purpose  to  lead  a  godly  life.  Upon 
each  of  these  they  were  required  to  give  an  audible  answer.*  Then 
followed  the  confession  and  declaration  of  pardon,  in  the  form  and  sense 
above  named.  Thus  most  emphatic  prominence  was  given  to  a  '■'sidj- 
jective,"  that  is,  inward  personal  preparation,  by  subjective  repentance, 
faith,  and  a  solemn  purpose  to  lead  a  holy  life,  as  of  the  first  importance 
to  fitness  for  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper. 

In  full  accordance  with  this  were  the  ruling  spirit  and  tenor,  and  all 
the  parts  of  the  order  for  administering  the  Sacrament  itself.  The  service 
immediately  preceding  the  Communion  proper,  consisted  of  an  address  in 
which  the  commemorative  design  and  import  of  the  Sacrament  were  set 
forth  in  succinct,  earnest  and  solemn  statements,  combined  with  a  tender 


*  Because  answers  are  also  in  one  sense  responses,  some  advocates  of  the  new  order 
liave  appealed  to  the  above  custom  as  an  evidence  that  "responses"  were  used  in  the 
early  Reformed  Church.  The  sophistry  is  too  transparent  to  deceive  any  one.  It  is  not 
even  smart.  All  can  see  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  between  a  simple  "  Yes  "  in 
answer  to  a  question,  and  such  "  responses  "  as  abound  in  the  services  of  the  Revised  Li- 
turgy. To  make  the  attempt  to  confound  the  two  things  still  more  manifestly  absurd,  a 
recent  writer  in  the  interest  of  the  new  Order  of  Worship,  has  very  gravely  undertaken 
to  prove  that  the  German  Reformed  Church  has  always  been  a  "responsive"  Church, 
from  the  fact  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  has  questions  and  answers,  i.  e.  responses ! 
Oranges  and  crab-apples  are  fruit;  therefore,  crab-apples  are  oranges! 


86  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

and  impressive  exhibition  of  the  passion  of  Him  in  ''  commemoration  "  * 
of  Whom  it  was  celebrated,  and  an  exhortation  to  partake  of  the  ordinance 
in  its  true  spirit.  Then  followed  a  prayer  "/or  true  faith,  sanctijication, 
and  patient  endurance  under  sufferings''  closing  with  "  Our  Father/'  and 
the  Apostles'  Creed.  In  regard  to  the  Creed,  the  wording  of  the  Liturgy 
may  be  understood  to  require  the  congregation  to  unite  aloud  ('•  mit 
Herz  und  Mund")  in  repeating  it.  If,  however,  actual  practice  rule  the 
import  of  the  language  used,  the  Creed  was  not  commonly  repeated  aloud 
by  the  people.  The  prayer  and  Creed  were  followed  by  a  brief  exhorta- 
tion, which,  being  very  significant,  is  here  given  in  full : 

"  That  we  may  now  be  fed  with  the  true  heavenly  bread  of  Christ,  let 
us  not  cleave  with  our  hearts  to  this  external  bread  and  wine,  but  lift  our 
hearts  and  faith  above  themselves  unto  heaven,  where  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Advocate,  is  at  the  right  hand  of  His  Heavenly  Father,  whither  also  the 
articles  of  our  Christian  faith  direct  us,  not  doubting  that  our  souls 
shall  be  fed  with  His  body  and  blood,  through  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  certainly  as  we  receive  the  sacred  bread  and  wine  in  remembrance 

of  Him."  t 

In  the  administration  of  the  elements,  the  sentences  used  were :  "  The 
Bread  which  we  break  is  the  communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ."  "  The 
cup  of  blessing  (thanksgiving)  with  which  we  bless  (give  thanks)  is  the 
communion  of  the  Blood  of  Christ." 

After  all  the  communicants  had  participated,  the  service  was  closed 
with  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving  of  inimitable  beauty. 

Thus  this  service,  again,  shows  throughout  how  much  importance  was 
attached  to  the  subjective  element  in  the  public  devotions  of  Christians. 
Indeed  the  entire  Reformed  type  of  piety,  and  consequently  the  entire 
cultus  of  our  Church,  assumes  the  fact  of  the  immediate  personal  relation 
of  the  believer  to  Grod  in  Christ.  Hence  public  worship,  all  the  divinely 
appointed  means  of  grace,  are  designed  as  helps  to  promote  this  immediate 
personal  union.  The  lay  believer  is  as  i-eallij  a  priest  as  the  officiating 
minister.  Hence  also  the  indispensableness  of  a  proper  frame  of  mind 
and  heart,  in  order  to  secure  the  benefits  of  the  means  of  grace.  And 
it  is  simply  as  absurd,  according  to  the  principles  of  our  cultus,  to  speak 
of  the  objective  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  whenever  they  are  administered, 
independently  of  subjective,  (personal)  preparation  and  fitness,  as  it 
would  be  to  speak  of  the  nutritive  properties  of  bread  independently  of 
the  capacity  of  the  stomach  to  take  up  such  nutriment.  For  a  stone  bread 
has  no  more  nutriment  than  another  stone.  The  property  is  consequently 
relative.   Bread  needs  a  stomach  as  much  as  a  stomach  needs  bread.    The 


«■  In  using  tho  terms,  "commemorative"  and  "commemoration,"  I  follow  strictly  the 
language  of  the  old  Palatinate  form. 

t  The  original  has  been  designedly  rendered  as  literally  as  possible. 


THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  87 

objective  is  tlierefore,  so  far  at  least,  dependent  for  its  efficacy  upon  the 
subjective.  This  is  also  ia  full  harmony  with  the  marked  subjective  spi- 
rit of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Let  this  be  called  what  it  may,  let  Dr. 
Nevin  stigmatize  it  unrestrainedly  as  pietism,  spiritualisticism,  or  even 
Puritanism,  its  prominence  in  our  cultus  cannot  be  denied.  Such  sub- 
jectivism, in  which,  however,  the  objective  is  by  no  means  ignored  or  even 
under-rated,  is  a  marked  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  German  lleformed 
cultus.  And  it  is  so^  as  has  already  been  shown,  because  that  cultus  was 
closely  modelled  after  Apostolic  precedent  and  practice. 

How  much  store  was  set  by  this  conformity  to  the  Apostolic  pattern  of 
worship,  by  the  fathers  of  our  Church,  may  bo  further  seen  in  the  ruling 
resemblance  of  all  the  other  forms  of  the  Old  Palatinate  Liturgy  to  those 
for  the  Lord's  Day  and  Communion  services.  Such  as  they  were,  also, 
they  were  found  efficient  in  serving  all  the  purposes  of  common  edification. 
They  had,  indeed,  no  responses;  not  a  single  one  is  found  in  any  of  the  ser- 
vices, unless,  indeed,  the  confession  of  sin,  and  the  Creed,  were  said  aloud 
by  the  congregation,  which  has  been  shown  to  be  improbable.  There 
were  no  "ritualistic  risings  and  bowings,"  there  were  no  "  antiphonal  con- 
certs of  praise."  That  is  true.  But  there  was  worship,  deep,  earnest  and 
devout;  such  as  is  mirrored  forth  in  the  devotions  of  the  primitive 
Church,  and  such  as  our  Lord  declared  was  most  acceptable  to  Him 
"  Who  is  a  Spirit."  There  were  no  attempts  at  reviving  or  imitating  the 
ceremonials  of  the  abrogated  Jewish  ritual  worship ;  but  there  is  manifest 
a  sincere  and  successful  purpose  of  having  worship  conducted  with  the 
spirit  and  with  the  understanding  also. 

And  such,  furthermore,  as  that  early  order  and  those  original  forms  of 
worship  in  our  Church  were,  in  1563,  such  they  continued  to  be  during 
succeeding  periods.  For  among  all  the  inexcusable  errors  which  Dr.  Nevin 
commits  in  his  turbulent  "Vindication,"  it  is  altogether  inexplicable  how 
he  should  have  fallen  into  the  mistake  of  saying  that  the  old  Palatinate 
service  soon  ceased  to  be  regarded  or  used,  either  in  Euiope,  or  by  the 
fathers  of  our  Church  in  this  country.  There  are  scores  of  old  European 
Hymn-books,  of  that  very  period,  during  which  especially  the  forms  in 
question  are  represented  as  having  fallen  into  decay,  which  contain  those 
very  forms.  In  my  own  possession  there  are  three  such  books,  the  oldest 
an  edition  of  1716,  published  at  Marburg;  the  next  dated  1746,  published 
at  Leeuwarden;  and  the  third  dated  1784,  Marburg  and  Frankfort,  all  of 
which  contain  these  very  forms,  as  forms  then  still  used.  So  that  what- 
ever other  Liturgies  may  have  been  brought  forward  from  time  to  time 
(See  Liturg.  Question,  p.  42),  the  old  Palatinate  maintained  its  place  and 
its  predominance  in  the  Church. 


88  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

lu  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  fathers  of  our  Church  io  this  country, 
it  might  have  been  supposed  that  every  tyro  in  her  history  knew:  that 
those  fathers  uniformly  brought  the  old  Palatinate  Liturgy  with  them,  and 
uniformly  used  it;  that  even  when  what  may  have  seemed  like  private 
forms  were  used,  they  were  mostly,  if  not  always,  copied  from  the  old  Pala- 
tinate or  abbreviations  of  its  services;  and  that  our  early  Hymn-books  in 
this  country,  like  that  now  before  me,  published  by  Saur  in  Grermantown, 
1753,  as  well  as  the  first  English  Hymn-book  used  among  us,  that  of  the 
Ref.  Dutch  Church,  contained  those  same  old  Falatinate  forms ^  and  tisually 
in  connection  with  the  Heidelherg  Catechism.  Nor  have  they  been  thus 
only  contained  in  the  Hymn  Books,  but  they  have  also  been  used  to  the 
present  day.  Those  forms  were  never  objected  to  on  the  ground  of  not 
being  sufficiently  ritualistic,  and  where  they  were  set  aside,  it  was  not 
owing  to  any  inherent  deficiency  in  this  respect.  And  Dr.  Nevin  might 
have  known  this,  and  thus  escaped  the  blunders  into  which  his  oversight 
or  neglect  of  f\icts  has  precipitated  him.  The  old  Palatinate  forms  were 
not  objected  to  in  the  first  place,  because  they  served  the  purpose  of  merely 
a  pulpit  Liturgy,  or  because  they  did  not  provide  for  enough  active  par- 
ticipation, on  the  part  of  the  congregation.  No  one,  at  first,  said  a  word 
about  repudiating  that  Liturgy  or  the  theory  of  worship  upon  which  it  was 
constructed.  The  chief  and,  indeed,  only  modifications  'proposed  {for 
modifications  only  were  talked  of  ^  had  reference  to  the  length  and  the  style 
of  its  forms.  Having  been  written  three  hundred  years  ago,  and  that  in 
the  German  language,  it  was  believed  that  some  improvements  could  be 
made  without  disturbing  the  general  structure,  or  violating  the  spirit  of 
the  services.  This  seemed  especially  necessary,  in  order  to  meet  the  views 
and  wishes  of  those  of  our  Churches  which  had  become  English.  And 
the  reason  why  the  Liturgy  of  the  Piev.  Dr.  Mayer  did  not  prove  generally 
acceptable  was,  not,  as  Dr.  Nevin  says,  because  "it  was  the  same  thing  in 
fact"  as  our  older  services,  but  because  it  was  prepared  in  an  independent 
way,  or  because  a  feeling  of  entire  indifference  or  opposition  to  Liturgical 
forms  of  all  kinds  had  become  predominant  in  large  portions  of  the  Church. 
The  truth  is,  that  excepting  as  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  school  endeavored  to 
produce  aversion  to  our  old  and  simple  mode  of  worship,  and  have  suc- 
ceeded in  disseminating  dissatisfaction  with  German  Heformed  character- 
istics of  faith  and  practice,  and  in  exciting  a  desire  for  something  neiver 
or  older,  no  such  aversion,  dissatisfaction  or  desire  ever  existed  or  even  now 
exists.  He  tells  us  that  he  has  been  laboring  to  produce  this  result  ever 
since  his  professorship  at  Mercersburg;  for  he  says,  he  "stands  now  where 
he  stood  then."  It  is  true,  many  of  us  did  not  so  understand  him  then, 
but  rather  supposed  that  his  theory  and  measures  contemplated  the  res- 
toration and  confirmation  of  true  historical  German  Reformed  character- 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  89 

istics.  Many  of  us  were  unsuspicious,  and,  I  may  add,  simple  enough,  to 
indulge  a  fond  but,  as  it  now  seems,  silly  delusion,  in  regard  to  the  true 
import  and  design  of  the  Mercersburg  system.  Our  misunderstanding  and 
delusion,  however,  did  not  hinder  the  process.  And  that  with  the  con- 
fidence of  a  Church  and  the  influence  of  a  Theol.  Sem.  and  a  College  to 
back  him,  he  should  succeed  in  twenty-five  years  in  efi"ecting  some  change  in 
our  prevailiog  ecclesiastical  sentiment,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  The 
foundations  of  Unitarianism  in  New  England  were  laid  in  less  time  than 
that.  But  partial  success  in  disseminating  such  views  in  a  Church  does 
not  prove  that  the  Church  wished  them  to  be  disseminated,  or  desired  to 
reap  such  a  harvest  as  they  promise  to  yield. 

Such,  then,  is  the  ruling  spirit,  and  such  are  the  characteristic  features 
of  the  cultus  established  by  the  fathers  and  founders  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church,  or  rather  restored  by  them  to  the  people  of  God,  long  de- 
frauded of  their  spiritual  rights  by  the  ritualistic  bondage  of  Rome.  And 
what  fault  have  Dr.  Nevin  and  brethren  of  his  mind  in  regard  to  the  new 
measures,  to  find  with  this  system  of  worship,  so  carefully  prepared  and 
devoutly  introduced  in  the  16th  Century,  and  so  distinctively  German  Re- 
formed in  all  its  chief  characteristics?  Is  it  not  faithfully  modelled  after 
the  ApostoUc  and  primitive  pattern  ?  Dr.  Nevin  will  not  venture  to  deny 
that  it  is,  or  that  any  minor  points  in  which  it  may  not  literally  correspond 
with  the  earliest  and  purest  practice,  are  not  in  essential  harmony  with 
that  practice.  Is  it  not  in  all  its  several  services  earnest,  solemn,  deeply 
devout,  and  are  these  services  not  calculated  to  promote  the  spirit  of  true 
worship  in  the  hearts  of  all  who  sincerely  participate  in  them  ?  Let  the 
influence  and  eff"ect  of  the  system  upon  the  Church  in  which  it  has 
obtained,  answer  this  question.  The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits.  And 
the  fruits  of  this  tree  may  boldly  challenge  comparison  with  those  of  any 
system  which  prevailed  from  the  third  Century  down  to  the  period  of  the 
Reformation.  If  worship  is  designed  to  promote  true  piety  ^  as  well  as  to 
be  a  medium  for  its  devout  expression,  and  if  the  merits  of  any  system  of 
worship  are  to  be  measured  by  its  fitness  to  serve  this  purpose,  then  the 
cultus  of  our  Church  may  triumphantly  appeal  to  the  enlightened  judg- 
ment of  all  evangelical  Christians  for  a  verdict  in  its  favor,  against  Dr. 
Nevin's  attempts  to  bring  it  into  disrepute,  and  to  secure  its  formal  rejec- 
tion and  abrogation. 

What  fault,  then,  can  be  found  with  it?  It  restored  to  the  people  their 
full  Christian  rights  in  public  worship.  Rome  had  established  the  inva- 
riable use  of  the  Latin  language,  as  peculiarly  sacred  to  the  Church,  and 
thus  deprived  the  laity  of  the  power  of  uniting  intelligently  in  the  services. 
Our  fathers  ordained  that  all  public  worship  should  be  conducted  in  the 
language  of  the  people  among  whom  it  was  celebrated.    Rome  had  robbed 


90  THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

the  people  of  their  right  to  praise  the  Lord  iu  psalms  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs,  and  allowed  a  vicarious  priesthood  the  exclusive  exercise 
of  this  prerogative.  Our  fathers  condemned  the  robbery,  and  restored  to 
the  people  their  right  in  this  respect  to  share  the  common  privilege  of  the 
only  universal  priesthood  in  the  Christian  Church.  Rome  had,  in  the 
same  exclusive  and  tyrannical  spirit,  deprived  the  people  of  their  common 
inheritance  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  refused  even  to  allow  them  to  hear 
the  glorious  Gospel  read  in  the  public  services  of  the  sanctuary,  and  ex- 
pounded and  applied  for  the  edification  of  the  people.  By. the  Apostolic 
system  of  worship  reclaimed  from  the  bondage  of  a  Babylonish  captivity, 
the  free  Word  of  God,  together  with  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  that  Word,  was  reinstated  in  its  legitimate  prominent  place,  so  that 
the  people  had  unrestrained  access  to  it,  and  might  again  be  "  fed  with 
the  sincere  milk  of  the  Word,  that  they  might  grow  thereby."  Rome 
claimed  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  was  bound  to  the  formal  confession 
made  to  her  priests,  and  to  their  formal  sacerdotal  remission  of  those  sins, 
grossly  perverting  one  of  the  most  comforting  declarations  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  and  one  of  the  most  consoling  assurances  connected  with  the  pro- 
clamation of  Gospel  grace.  By  the  cultus  of  our  Church,  as  instituted  in 
the  16th  Century,  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  sincere  penitent  believers 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  were  rescued  from  this  cruel  subjection  to  sacer- 
dotal usurpations  of  a  Divine  prerogative,  and  assured  for  their  joy  and 
peace,  that  He  who  alone  hath  power  to  forgive  sins,  had  most  certainly 
pardoned  them,  if  they  had  truly  repented  and  fully  trusted  in  His  merits. 
The  Romish  Church  had  taught  the  people  to  rely  upon  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass,  for  the  salvation  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  to  attach  to  its 
celebration  such  opuss  operatum  efficacy,  and  to  believe  that  their  salvation 
here,  and  deliverance  from  a  fictitious  purgatory  hereafter  depended  upon 
the  sacerdotal  administration  of  the  mass.  To  quite  another  source  did 
the  cultus  of  our  16th  Century  fathers  teach  believers  to  look,  upon  quite 
another  foundation  to  rest  their  hope  of  salvation,  as  they  celebrated  the 
Holy  Supper  of  our  Lord  after  the  mariner  and  spirit  of  its  original  institu- 
tion. 

Is  it  with  these  distinctive  peculiarities  of  our  early  Reformed  worship 
that  Dr.  Nevin  and  some  others  find  fault  ?  Possibly  not.  But  he  tells 
us  what  he  considers  their  fatal  defects.  It  ions  not  modelled  after  the 
Liturgies  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries!  It  lacked  ritualistic  action. 
It  was  too  spiritualistic,  ran  into  extreme  simplicity.  And  all  this  "  over 
against  the  irorship  of  the  Catholic "  (Roman,  of  course,  must  here  be 
m^ant)  "  Church,"  which  "  stood  in  the  way  of  its  producing  a  full  Litur- 
gical cultus,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term."  (Liturg.  Ques.  pp.  40-1,  60-1). 
But  what  is  a  still  more  serious  defect,  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  find 


THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  91 

fault  with  our  old  order  of  worsliip,  is,  that  it  wholly  abolished  the  sacri- 
ficial altar  of  the  Romish  style,  with  an  officiating  specific  priesthood,  and 
substituted  in  its  place  the  sacramental  table  of  the  Lord.  This  was  sufii- 
cient  to  condemn  the  Liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century,  if  they  had  been 
marred  by  no  other  defects.  Even  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  con- 
sidered so  superior  in  all  other  respects  to  any  acknowledged  Reformed 
Service  of  that  period,  lacked  in  this  respect  an  essential  element  of  a  true 
Liturgy.  Like  the  rest  it  had  no  altar,  in  this  sacrificial  sense,  and  recog- 
nized no  specific  priesthood  as  a  separate  caste.  Although,  therefore,  the 
new  "Order  of  Worship"  so  closely  follows  the  Episcopal  Service  in  most 
of  its  details,  often  even  literally,  that  "  Order"  could  not  endure  the  ig- 
noring of  the  altar  and  sacerdotal  character  of  the  ministry.  Consequently 
we  find  in  the  new  "Order"  that  the  altar  in  a  propitiatory  sacrificial 
sense  is  openly  restored,  and  that  although  the  minister  is  not  called  a 
priest,  it  virtually  invests  him  with  priestly  functions,  as  well  in  the  regu- 
lar and  sacramental  services,  as  in  the  form  of  ordination.  And  now,  be- 
cause in  the  Reformed  Liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century,  especially  that 
of  the  Palatinate,  there  is  no  such  altar  of  '^sacramental  holiness  inhabit- 
ing the  house  of  Grod,"  to  which  worshipping  assemblies  might  "  do  hodiJi/ 
reverence ;"  because  though  they  breathe  a  truly  sacramental  spirit,  they 
do  not  "breathe  tJiroughout  a  sacrificial  spirit^'  (Liturg.  Ques.  p.  51)  in  a 
propitiatory  sense;  and  because  they  allow  no  place  to  a  mediating  specific 
priesthood,  they  are  to  be  discarded.  These,  substantially,  are  the  objec- 
tions urged  against  what  has  ever  been  the  Reformed  type  of  worship. 
Again,  it  may  be  allowed  that  these  objections  are  honestly  entertained.^ 
For  myself,  I  confess  my  conviction  that  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  disciples  be- 
lieve most  heartily  that  our  Glerman  Reformed  style  of  worship  is  not  as 
good  as  the  style  they  advocate.  But  that  does  not  make  ours  bad  or 
theirs  better.  Their  judgment  may  err.  Their  tastes  may  be  false.  They 
may  apply  a  wrong  standard  to  the  case.  The  constitutional  character  of 
the  Reformed  Church  may  not  have  "  carried  in  it  a  tendency  to  what  we 
call  extreme  simplicity  and  spiritualism."  (Liturg.  Ques.  p.  41).  It  may  be 
much  nearer  the  Apostolic  type  than  "the  constitutional  character"  of 
the  Revised  Liturgy.  And  that  Liturgy,  rather  than  those  of  the  old 
Reformed  type,  may  not  only  be  "  materially  and  essentially  different  from 
any  thing  known  to  our  fathers,"  but  may  be  radically  and  fatally  defec- 
tive in  all  that  pertains  to  the  ruling  characteristics  of  Christian  evan- 
gelical worship. 

After  the  severe  animadversions  cast  upon  the  older  cultus  of  our 
Church,  and  the  disdaioful  manner  in  which  our  earlier  Liturgies  are 
spurned,  it  is  both  natural  and  reasonable  to  expect  that  those  who  indulge 
in  such  criticism  and  contempt  have  a  substitute  to  furnish,  which  shall, 


92  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

in  every  sense,  be  above  reproacb,  and  altogetlier  worthy  of  acceptance. 
And  possibly,  if  we  could  only  get  into  the  right  position  for  securing  a 
fiivorablc  view  of  it,  it  would  commend  itself  to  our  approbation.  As  Dr. 
Nevin  says,  in  the  striking  astronomical  illustration  on  p.  56  of  his  trea- 
tise, veiy  much  depends  upon  position  in  contemplating  things.  It  is, 
therefore,  no  doubt  very  unfortunate  for  ourselves,  if  not  for  the  Revised 
Liturgy,  that  our  habit  of  looking  at  such  things  from  a  Protestant  evan- 
gelical, i.  e.,  from  a  Scriptural  Apostolic  stand-point,  is  so  confirmed,  that 
in  spite  of  every  effort  to  get  into  a  Cyprianic  or  Glregorian  position,  we 
are  constantly  viewing  the  remarkable  work  in  quite  another  light.  The 
true  touch-stone  by  which  to  test  its  merit  is  Apostolic  precept  and  prac- 
tice, as  revived  and  established  again  by  our  Church  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. Not  Dr.  Nevin,  nor  a  thousand  like  him  at  his  side,  should  be 
allowed  for  a  moment  to  shake  our  confidence  in  the  work  wrought  by  our 
Reformed  fathers,  as  directed  and  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  And 
until  it  is  proven  beyond  all  contradiction,  by  Scripture  and  Apostolic 
testimony,  that  they  did  their  work  badly;  or  until  it  is  proven  that  the 
compilers  of  the  Revised  Liturgy  have  done  their  work  better,  in  the  true 
Apostolic  sense,  we  should  not  let  ourselves  be  tempted  to  barter  our  ancient 
birthright.  The  very  first  thing  we  have  a  right  to  demand  of  this  new 
aspirant  for  fame  and  authority  in  our  Church,  is,  whether  it  is  honestly  and 
thoroughly  Reformed?  We  have  a  standard  of  worship  which  we  should 
not  suffer  to  be  removed  or  altered,  until  it  is  proven  false  by  a  stronger 
kind  of  evidenc'e  than  the  denunciations  and  sarcasms  of  Drs.  Nevin, 
Harbaugh  and  others.  Does  the  Revised  Liturgy  come  up  to  tha 
measure  of  that  standard? 

With  the  distinctive  features  of  the  book,  the  readers  of  this  tract 
may  be  supposed  to  be  familiar.  By  the  confession  of  its  advocates,  it 
does  not  pretend  to  be  German  Reformed  in  any  true  and  historical  sense. 
They  say  that  the  great  defects  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy  were  the  large 
concessions  it  made  to  the  system  of  worship  known  to  our  Church,  and 
which  alone  can  be  harmonized  with  its  true  spirit  and  genius.  It  was 
by  far  too  much  of  a  pulpit  Liturgy;  could  be,  and,  with  three  or  four 
exceptions,  was  used  as  a  pulpit  hand-book.  "The  Revised  Liturgy  is 
now  relieved  of  its  first  defects,  and  brought  into  easy  working  form," 
says  Dr.  Nevin.  Hence  to  be  made  perfect  in  his  judgment,  the  Pro- 
visional Liturgy  had  to  be  purged  most  thoroughly  of  every  element 
which  it  possessed  in  common  with  old  Reformed  Liturgies.  And  this 
we  find  done  to  the  extremest  degree  in  the  new  "Order  of  Worship." 
In  every  respect  it  is  made  to  differ  as  widely  as  possible  from  the  Re- 
formed type  of  worship.  Spurning  the  very  order  which  our  fathers 
adopted  and  estaUished  it  takes  up  that   order  which  theij  knowingly  and 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  93 

designedly  rejected,  and  even  "im2)rove"  upon  it  by  sundry  additions  and 
variations.  Under  pretence  of  elevating  the  cultus  of  the  Church,  and 
this  in  compliance  with  her  own  instructions,  this  new  Order  seeks  wholly 
to  subvert  the  true  cultus  of  the  Church,  and  to  force  itself  upon  her 
members  and  congregations  by  the  use  of  unworthy  means.  For  what 
Dr.  Nevin  says  about  freedom,  liberty  &c.,  in  regard  to  the  introduction 
of  the  new  Order,  is  too  manifestly  one-sided,  to  deceive  any  cautious 
reader.  He  means  that  there  ought  to  be  full  liberty  to  introduce  the 
booh,  to  laud  and  commend  it,  and  to  use  whatever  methods  "cautious 
and  prudent  pastors"  may  think  best  suited  to  secure  its  success.  But 
he  is  intolerant  of  liberty  to  expose  and  resist  the  movement;  to  tell  the 
people  fairly  and  candidly  that  it  involves  a  complete  metamorphosis  of 
their  Church;  the  utter  forsaking  and,  repudiation  of  her  past  history; 
a  change  from  all  that  is  distinctive  of  us  as  a  Church,  into  what  would 
convert  us,  not  indeed,  into  a  genuine  Episcopal  Church,  for  true  Epis- 
copalians whom  we  highly  esteem  denounce  the  new  Order  of  Worship 
as  inconsistent  with  evangelical  Protestantism,  but  into  what  would  con- 
vert us  into  a  Church  whose  closest  affinities  would  be  with  what  the 
Reformers  condemned  as  the  harlot  of  Rome.  Dr.  Nevin  may  say  what 
he  pleases,  and  others  may  take  up  and  reiterate  his  words,  in  misrepre- 
senting and  decrying  the  spirit  and  genius  of  our  Church;  for  doing  this 
full  liberty  is  claimed.  But  when  the  nakedness  of  his^views  or  schemes  is 
exposed ;  when  the  reproach  put  upon  the  fathers  is  repelled,  and  reasons 
are  urged  why  the  Church  should  not  accept  of  or  allow  the  innovations, 
'then  the  cry  is  raised:  you  deny  us  our  liberty.  Because  men,  awaked  in 
time  to  a  sense  of  the  evil  threatening  our  heritage,  resist  the  attempt 
to  sow  tares  over  the  field,  and  endeavor  to  let  others  know  the  danger, 
those  men  are  enemies  to  congregational  liberty!  If  Dr.  Nevin  were  a 
pastor,  and  the  Rev.  C.  Gr.  Finney  should  pass  along,  would  he  throw 
open  the  doors  of  his  church  to  the  renowned  revivalist,  and  let  the 
stranger  have  fair  play  for  a  year  or  two?  Or  would  Dr.  Nevin  think  it 
an  infringement  upon  the  liberty  of  his  congregation,  not  to  let  them 
have  the  opportunity,  and  enjoy  the  privilege  of  hearing  Mr.  Finney, 
and  seeing  whether  his  views  might  not  be  thought  more  acceptable,  or 
more  '^live  theology,"  than  those  of  their  old  Pastor? 

Talk  of  liberty!  Is  it  not  a  well-known  fact  that  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  where  the  responsive  and  other  peculiarities  of  the  New  Order  are 
used,  they  were  introduced  without  the  consent  of  the  congregation,  and 
are  used  to  the  oflTence  of  many  members  ?  And  is  not  Dr.  Nevin  per- 
fectly familiar  with  at  least  one  illustration  in  point?  Or  apart  from  that 
illustration,  so  near  home,  is  it  forgotten  that  an  attempt  made  by  an  elder 
at  Dayton  to  protect  the  people  against  having  the  New  Order  forced  upon 


94  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

them  against  their  desire  and  will;  was  at  once  frowned  down  ?  Why,  if  all 
this  cry  for  liberty  is  sincere,  not  require  every  pastor  and  consistory  to 
submit  the  question  to  the  congregation  in  full  assembly  (not  with  but 
fifteen  or  twenty  members,  out  of  two  hundred,  present,  as  is  said  to  have 
been  the  case  at  Jonestown  not  long  ago),  instead  of  permitting  the  inno- 
vations to  be  introduced  "on  the  sly?"  This,  however,  by  the  way. 
As  we  have  already  stated,  the  new  "Order  of  Worship  "  is  freely  ac- 
knowledged to  be  "materially  and  essentially  different  from  any  mode  of 
worship  known  to  the  Reformed  Church."  And  yet  the  real  extent  of 
this  diversity  is  probably  not  fully  realized,  even  by  those  who  have  given 
some  attention  to  its  peculiarities.  But  before  we  consent  to  the  endorse- 
ment or  adoption  of  a  book  marked  by  such  peculiarities,  their  true  na- 
ture and  effect  upon  our  personal  and  denominational  life  should  be  most 
carefully  pondered,  and,  if  possible,  correctly  ascertained.  Sometimes,  it 
is  true,  in  entertaining  strangers,  angels  are  entertained  unawares.  But 
whilst  the  counsel  of  one  Apostle  should  be  heeded,  we  should  not  forget 
that  another  admonishes  us  against  opening  the  door  to  all  strangers  in- 
discriminately, or  giving  them  comfort  and  encouragement.  We  most 
cordially  accept  of  Dr.  Nevin's  rule,  as  taken  from  the  advice  of  this 
same  second  Apostle.  The  spirits  must  be  tried.  Only  he  and  we  differ 
as  to  the  standard.  He  says,  the  fourth  century;  we  say,  the  first.  He 
says,  by  patristic  authority;  we  say,  by  Apostolic  authority.  He  says,  by 
the  Creed  in  the  third  and  fourth  century  sense;  we  say,  by  the  Creed  as 
explained  in  our  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which  gives,  in  all  essentials,-  the 
true  Gospel  sense.  He  says,  by  the  test,  has  Christ  come  in  the  tiesh;  we 
say,  the  cunning  spirits  have  long  since  learned  to  mimic  this  Shibboleth, 
and  whilst  saying  most  glibly.  We  believe  that  Christ  has  come  in  the» 
flesh,  have  glided  into  the  Church  and  filled  her  with  most  abominable 
God  and  Christ  dishonoring  corruptions.  For  tea  centuries  before  the 
Keformatioa,  Papal  Rome  said  this,  and  yet  she  was  an  apostacy,  the  har- 
lot of  the  book  of  Revelation.  Hence  we  plant  ourselves  upon  this  divine 
test:  not  evert/  one  that  sayetli  Lord^  Lord,  i.  e.,  not  every  one  that  avows 
faith  in  the  incarnation,  &c.,  is  to  be  welcomed  as  sincerely  of  the  truth, 
and  entitled  to  our  hearty  God-speed. 

There  is  more  to  be  done,  therefore,  before  the  new  Order  is  adopted 
as  the  order  of  worship  for  our  Church,  than  merely  to  contemplate  its 
exterior  features.  It  can  be  shown  by  the  declarations  and  admissions  of 
its  advocates,  that  it  not  only  varies  in  some  material  respects  from  the 
established  cultus  of  our  Church,  but  that  it  is  utterly  irreconcilaUe  toifh 
it.  To  how  great  an  extent  this  is  true,  may  be  clearly  seen  in  the  follow- 
ing points  of  disagreement. 


THE  LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  95 

A  general  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  new  Order  is  not  simply  different 
from  our  denominational  cultus,  but  utterly  irreconcilable  with  it,  is  found 
in  those  assertions  of  its  advocates  which  declare  our  established  cultus 
unliturgical,  and  pronounce  such  Liturgies  as  the  Old  Palatinate  no  true 
Liturgies.  Upon  this  point  no  men  could  speak  more  plainly,  to  say  no- 
thing of  justice  or  modesty,  than  they  have  done.  But,  however  success- 
fully the  claims  of  our  ancient  cultus  may  be  maintained  against  such  re- 
proaches, is  it  not  evident  that  in  the  estimation  of  those  who  plead  for 
the  new  Order,  it  and  our  old  order  are  in  radical  and  fundamental  hosti- 
lity to  each  other?  And  so  they  unquestionably  are.  They  rest  upon  to- 
tally different  theories  of  Christianity  and  the  Church.  They  do  not  pre- 
tend even  to  be  based  on  the  same  foundation.  The  cultus  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church  rests  upon  the  Apostolic  type  of  worship ;  that  of  the 
new  Order  upon  the  fourth  century  patristic  type;  the  former  appeals  to 
the  word  of  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles ;  the  latter  to  the  word  and  ex- 
ample of  the  fathers  of  the  third,  fourth,  and,  if  Dr.  Nevin  were  perfectly 
candid,  he  would  acknowledge,  the  fifth  and  later  centuries.  To  set  aside 
our  old  order  of  worship,  therefore,  and  to  adopt  this  new  system,  involves 
a  repudiation  and  abandonment  of  the  Apostolic  foundation  on  which  our 
old  mode  of  worship  rests.  For  be  it  remembered  that  the  advocates  of 
the  innovations  do  not  pretend  at  all  to  support  or  to  justify  them  by  an 
appeal  to  the  true  original  source  of  authority,  but  solely  to  the  practice 
of  the  Church  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries.  They  do  not  claim  that 
their  cultus  is  Apostolic,  excepting  so  far  as  it  is  Patristic.  And  yet  I 
may  have  written  too  fast.  I  call  to  mind  that  Dr.  Nevin  does  appeal  in 
one  place  (so  does  Bishop  Hopkins  in  his  late  defence  of  Ritualism)  to 
something  said  in  one  of  the  Psalms  about  all  the  people  saying:  Amen. 
Did  he  forget  what  is  said  in  another  Psalm  about  'Upraising  the  Lord 
with  the  timbrel  and  dance  ?"  Or  has  he  become  such  a  literalistic  and 
indiscriminate  interpreter  and  applier  of  Holy  Writ,  that  he  would 
justify  the  dancing  Quakers  (notwithstanding  his  dislike  of  Quakers  in 
general)  on  the  ground  of  this  latter  exhortation  of  the  Psalmist?  The 
unfortunate  irrelevancy  of  the  few  appeals,  like  that  to  Hebrews  13  : 
10,  in  justification  of  the  propitiatory  altar,  made  by  the  vindicators  of 
the  new  Order,  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  only  serve  to  show  how  lit- 
tle store  they  set  by  inspired  precepts  and  examples  in  such  matters. 

But  this  general  irreconcilable  diversity  between  the  two  schemes  of 
worship,  becomes  more  manifest  if  we  look  at  the  constituent  elements  of 
the  cultus  of  both. 

1.  The  most  prominent  disagreement  between  the  two  systems,  that 
diversity  which  is  likely  first  to  strike  the  mind,  is  found  in  the  rcsjwnses 
of  the  new  Order.  It  is  not  said  that  this  is  the  most  important  and  serious, 


96  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

by  any  meau3.  We  readily  accept  the  statement,  that  the  great  question 
before  us  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  ''  responses"  or  "no  responses."  None 
of  the  opponents  of  the  new  measures  ever  said  it  was.  At  the  same  time 
this  extremely  responsive  feature  of  the  new  "Order"  is  not  to  be  flip- 
pantly set  aside  with  a  sneer  or  a  laugh.  In  the  thing  itself  of  congrega- 
tional responses  in  public  worship,  but  little  may  be  seen  that  is  seriously 
objectionable.  At  any  rate  we  would  not  ridicule  it,  or  try  to  make  it 
seem  intolerably  absurd,  as  the  Liturgical  Committee  have  done  with  the 
cultus  of  the  Reformed  Church.  We  have  no  fault  to  find  with  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  because  their  Common  Prayer  is  marked  with  this  peculiar- 
ity. In  that  Church  there  are  both  clergy  and  laymen  whom  we  cordially 
esteem,  and  are  happy  to  enjoy  their  regard.  Especially  has  the  evange- 
lical portion  of  that  Church  the  sincere  sympathy  of  those  of  us  who  are 
learning  by  sad  experience  how  fierce  and  reckless  a  foe  the  spirit  of 
hyper-ecclesiasticism  is.  But  while  responses  jj<'r  se  may  be  set  among 
things  indifferent,  and  while  other  Churches  which  have  them  may  not 
be  denounced  or  discarded  on  that  account,  we  must  remember  that  they 
are  not  offered  to  us  pe?-  se,  in  themselves  alone,  in  the  present  case.  The 
advocates  of  the  innovations  would  no  doubt  confess  that  they  are  an 
essential  part  of  their  system  as  at  present  developed.  So  the  introduction 
of  such  full  responses,  choral  antiphonies,  and  so  fortli^  into  the  fourth 
Century  Church,  was  the  budding  or  flowering  of  a  theory,  a  system,  "  an 
organic  process"  which  by  and  by  surprised  the  world  by  its  fruit,  as  much 
as  the  first  discoverers  of  some  vegetables  were  to  find  that  the  blossoms  on 
the  stem  indicated  fruit  under  ground. 

In  these  responses,  then,  as  incorporated  into  the  Revised  Liturgy,  we 
discover  a  purpose  and  a  scheme,  to  sever  completely  all  historical  connec- 
tion hetwcen  our  Church  of  the  present  and  our  Church  of  the  past  and, 
also  hetween  our  section  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  other  branches  of 
the  Reformed  family.  When  some  conquerors  desired  wholly  to  absorb 
their  captives  and  to  destroy  their  national  identity,  they  forbid  their 
speaking  their  native  tongue,  or  singing  their  national  songs ;  and  re- 
quired them  to  learn  and  speak  the  language,  and  to  practice  the  manners 
of  their  new  master.  It  was  the  very  perfection  of  craft,  but  no  less  the 
refinement  of  heartless  cruelty.  In  some  cases  the  craft  succeeded,  and 
cruelty  in  progress  of  time  rendered  the  captives  or  their  children  callous 
and  indifferent  to  the  destruction  of  their  nationality. 

Thus,  in  a  figure,  those  who  are  seeking  to  gain  the  assent  of  our  Church 
to  be  brought  under  the  dominion  of  this  new  order,  propose,  as  one  of 
the  first  things,  that  we  worship  the  trod  of  our  fathers  in  a  form  and 
manner  so  entirely  different  from  their  mode  of  worshipping  Him,  that  by 
the  adoption  of  the  new  scheme,  our  ecclesiastical  affinity  with  them,  and 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  97 

with  the  descendants  of  their  nearest  and  dearest  ecclesiastical  kindred, 
would  wholly  and  forever  cease.  And  let  us  remember  here,  that  whilst 
our  legitimate  ecclesiastical  relationship  would  thus  be  severed,  there  are 
other  features  distinctive  of  this  new  Order  of  Worship,  which  would  pre- 
vent our  finding  congenial  fellowship  in  any  other  denomination  of  evan- 
gelical Christians.  For  much  as  we  all  should  regret  to  lose  our  deno- 
minational identity  by  being  absorbed  by  the  Episcopal  Church  (and 
I  think  that  many  intelligent  and  liberal  members  of  that  Church,  who,  I 
am  happy  to  know,  would  join  in  the  regret),  our  greatest  peril  from  the  new 
measures  is  not  that  they  may  lead  our  Church  into  evangelical  Episcopacy, 
but  into  that  element  of  the  Episcopal  Church  which  many  honest  and 
earnest  Episcopalians  themselves  justly  and  unqualifiedly  condemn.  And 
in  corroboration  of  this  truth  I  may  state,  that  without  exception,  so  far 
as  I  know,  all  the  ministers  who  have,  during  the  last  years,  abandoned 
our  Church,  and  united  with  the  Episcopal  Church,  belong  to  the  extreme 
high-church  party  there.  Much,  therefore,  as  we  have  reason  to  object, 
on  the  ground  of  a  commendable  regard  for  our  denominational  existence, 
that  our  mode  of  worship  should  be  changed  into  such  conformity  with 
that  peculiar  to  another  Church,  as  might  lead  to  denominational  loss  — 
there  is  still  greater  cause  for  opposition  to  suc-h  change  on  the  other 
ground  indicated. 

It  is  further  to  be  noted,  that  the  new  order  not  only  diff"ers  in  the  use 
and  multiplication  of  responses  from  our  old  mode  of  worship,  but  also 
from  the  Provisional  Liturgy,  upon  which  it  is  off'ered  as  an  improvement. 
In  the  Provisional  Liturgy  there  are  simple  non-responsive  services.  In 
the  Revised  Liturgy  all  such  are  excluded.  It  has  the  merit,  at  least,  of 
being  now  unique,  though  for  that  reason  more  radically  anti-Reformed. 
For  it  will  hardly  be  called  in  question,  that  such  a  studied,  persistent  ex- 
clusion of  forms,  resembling  those  to  which  the  Church  had  ever  been 
accustomed,  and  the  sole  use  of  a  new  mode  of  worship,  implies  irreconci- 
lable antagonism.  If  not,  why  did  not  the  Committee  propose  to  the 
Synod  the  propriety  of  dissolving  our  ecclesiastical  organization,  and  of 
merging  our  denominational  existence  into  that  of  another  Church? 

Upon  this  ground  then,  chiefly  do  we  maintain  that  the  responses*  of 
the  new  Order  present  an  insuperable  objection  to  its  adoption  and  place 


■•■■A  correspondent  (A.)  of  the  G.  E.  Mceeengei;  for  whom  I  still  cherish  great  esteem, 
seems  so  bent  upon  throwing  stones  at  me  that  he  goes  far  out  of  his  vfAy  to  pick  them. 
Thus  he  persists  in  arguing  that  bccaufe  I  am  willing  to  allow  the  Creed  to  be  recited  in 
the  S.  School  (he  might  have  added  in  the  congregation,  also,  on  special  occasions),  the 
whole  point  of  responses  is  surrendered.  Surely  the  Brother  is  too  old  to  indulge  in  such 
puerile  sophistries,  with  any  hope  of  misleading  people  by  them.  Because  a  congregation 
may  occasionally  recite  the  Creed,  there/ore,  it  should  not  object  to  the  Revised  Liturgy  ! 
What  a  leap  to  reach  the  rock  ! 
7. 


98  THE    LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

it  iQ  essential  hostility  to  the  historical  cultus  of  the  Keformed  Church. 
It  is  not  only  our  privilege  but  our  duty,  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  our 
identity.  The  introduction  of  a  full  responsive  scheme  of  worship  like 
that  of  the  new  Order  strikes  at  the  root  of  that  identity,  and  must  prove 
Its  destruction.  Are  we  willing  to  submit  to  such  an  issue?  With  all  our 
liberality,  our  lamentations  over  the  divisions  of  Zion,  and  our  strong  desires 
for  the  day  when  there  maybe  "one  fold  and  one  Shepherd,"  are  we 
prepared,  can  we  think  ourselves  required,  to  oifer  so  partial  and  one- 
sided a  sacrifice  to  an  experiment  so  unreasonable,  so  visionary,  so  un- 
likely to  serve  the  end  of  true  and  sacred  unity  as  this?  We  hope,  we 
believe,  that  the  day  of  the  general  unity  of  the  Church,  is  not  far  off. 
But  Ritualism,  instead  of  hastening  is  retarding  it.  It  is  not  by  zeal  to 
have  men  say  with  the  lip:  "Amen!  the  Lord's  name  be  praised,"  and 
the  like;  but  by  the  spirit  which  seeks  to  have  them  animated  with  true 
inward  devoutness,  and  deep  heartfelt  aspirations,  that  the  desired  result 
is  to  be  achieved. 

2.  But  if  the  responses  of  the  new  Order  of  Worship  place  it  in  rather 
an  external  and  superficial  antagonism  to  the  cultus  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  that  Order  is  strongly  marked  by  another  characteristic,  and 
ruled  by  another  principle,  which  does  not  constitute  a  merely  outward 
and  "  insignificant"  objection,  but  is  one  which  affects  the  inmost  life  of  our 
evangelical  system. 

It  was  shown,  some  pages  back  in  the  statement  made  concerning  the 
basis  upon  which  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church  reconstructed  her  cul- 
tus, that  the  iinmediate  personal  relation  of  each  believer  to  God  in  Christ, 
and  of  the  free  personal  access  of  each  directly/  for  himself  to  God,  was  a 
cardinal  doctrine  or  principle  of  their  system.  Hence  in  the  order  for 
public  worship  which  they  restored,  the  congregation  does  not  approach 
the  mercy-seat  through  the  minister  (as  though  he  were  a  mediating  sacer- 
dos),  does  not  pray  through  the  minister  for  pardon,  and  such  blessings  as 
may  be  desired.  Rather  are  minister  and  people  considered  as  one  com- 
mon priesthood,  and  the  people  as  praying  in  and  with  the  minister  as  their 
mouth-piece  (not  sub-mediator).  Their  doing  this  silently,  and  breathing 
at  the  close  of  the  prayer  a  silent  Amen,  no  way  diminished,  but  rather 
was  calculated  to  increase,  the  sincerity  with  which  it  was  done.  But  the 
main  point  is,  that  the  people  themselves  had  access,  in  common  with 
the  minister,  by  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  to  the  Father.  This  was  espe- 
cially the  case  in  the  service  of  the  Holy  Supper.  The  minister  did  not 
stand  before  them  as  a  mediating  priest,  offering  up  on  their  behalf  a  me- 
morial propitiation  for  their  sins.  It  was  not  to  a  sacrifice  in  such  sense, 
but  to  a  spiritual  supper  they  had  come,  and  to  full,  direct  personal  parti- 
cipation in  all  the  benefits  of  that  Holy  Supper,  they  had  all  an  equal 


THE   LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  99 

right  with  the  minister.  This,  then,  was  a  fundamental  distinctive  cha- 
racteristic of  the  Reformed  cultus.  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  Committee  them- 
selves acknowledge  this,  even  whilst  condemning  what  they  regard  as  a  se- 
rious unchurchly  defect.  To  deny  this  prerogative  to  the  individual 
Christian,  to  setup  a  cultus,  one  of  whose  chief  corner-stones  is  the  princi- 
ple of  some  sort  of  sacerdotal  mediation,  as  indispensable  to  popular 
worship,  is  most  undeniably,  therefore,  to  set  up  a  system  which  must  be 
in  irreconcilable  antagonism  both  to  a  ruling  characteristic  of  our  Re- 
formed cultus,  and  to  the  Reformed  evangelical  doctrine  of  the  universal 
priesthood  of  Christians. 

But  this  is  one  of  those  points  in  which  the  new  Order  of  Worship  dif- 
fers so  "materially  and  essentially"  from  all  our  old  Reformed  Liturgies. 
Of  course,  we  find  no  explicit  formal  statements  to  this  efiect  in  the  book. 
It  is  not  a  text-book  of  theology.  But  the  principles  on  which  it  rests  may 
nevertheless  be  ascertained,  from  its  ruling  spirit  and  tone,  and  from  the 
known  sentiments  of  its  authors  in  reference  to  the  points  involved.  Thus, 
examined  and  judged,  the  Revised  Liturgy  is  plainly  seen  to  be  in  open 
conflict  with  established  Reformed  principles. 

Happily  we  are  relieved  of  the  necessity  of  sustaining  or  illustratin"- 
this  point  by  elaborate  argument.  The  Committee,  speaking  throu"-h  Dr. 
Nevin,  tell  us  most  distinctly  that  they  utterly  discarded  the  Reformed 
idea  of  the  immediate  spiritual  relationship  of  the  believer  to  God,  and 
of  his  right  of  direct  personal  access  to  the  gracious  Hearer  of  prayer  and 
Source  of  all  grace.  This  is  expressed,  indeed,  in  language  which  might 
seem  ambiguous  to  those  not  familiar  with  ecclesiastical  phraseology.  But 
to  others,  the  import  of  their  language  is  obvious  enough,  as  it  was  doubt- 
less meant  to  be.  Thus  they  unhesitatingly  declare  in  the  manifesto  tract, 
to  which  we  have  so  much  occasion  and  such  full  right  to  refer  in  proof 
of  their  views  and  designs, — that  a  true  Liturgy  "  must  bear  a  certain 
priestly  character,  determined  by  a  proper  regard  throughout  to  the  idea 
of  a  Christian  altar."  Now,  as  the  terms  ^^  priest"  and  '■'■altar"  have  a 
familiar  inoffensive  sense,  a  sense  in  which  they  are  altogether  proper  and 
allowable,  this  quotation  may  seem  to  contain  nothing  objectionable.  But 
those  very  terms,  so  evangelical  as  they  are  commonly  employed  by  Chris- 
tians, have  also  a  signification  which  is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  Gos- 
pel idea  of  "altar"  and  "priest,"  and  which  renders  both  virtually  syno- 
nymous with  their  import  under  the  dncient  Levitical  dispensation,  and 
those  modern  mongrel  imitations  of  it  found  in  the  Romish,  and  Puseyite 
portion  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  *  Have  they  this  sense  in  the  new 
"Order  of  Worship  ?"     Undoubtedly  they  have,  if  thfe  following  passage 

*  What  Dr.  Nevin  says  about  a  "ridiculous  fuss,"  and  what  his  feeble  echo  sajs  about 
"Spooks  in  the  garret,"  and  "nigger  in  the  cellar,"  will  receive  some  little  notice  by  and 
by. 


100  TOE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

can  be  regarded  as  meaning  what  the  words  plainly  imply.  "We  feel  at 
once  what  the  Liturgical  means,  in  this  view,  in  the  old prieUly  services  of 

the  Jewish  few^jfc,  WHERE  THE  TRANSACTION  OF  THE  ALTAR  SERVED  TO  ME- 
DIATE OBJECTIVELY  BETWEEN  THE  HeARER  OF  PRAYER  AND  HiS  WOR- 
SHIPPING PEOPLE.  In  THE  SAME  WAY,  it  is  held,  the  true  Christian  Lei- 
tourgia,  the  suhstance  of  which  that  older  service  was  only  a  type,  must  ever 
circle  as  a  system  of  offices,  round  the  Christian  altar,  as  something  always 
mystically  prcseiit  in  the  Christian  Church."  Here,  then,  it  is  frankly 
declared,  though  with  some  mental  reservations,  that  the  design  of  the  new 
"  Order"  is  to  restore  sacerdotal  functions  to  the  Gospel  ministry,  and  a 
"  mystical"  propitiatory  significancy  to  the  altar.  For  let  it  be  noted  that 
the  language  emphatically  declares  that  the  Christian  altar  must  be  a  real, 
substantial,  visible  centre,  corresponding  as  a  full  antitype  to  the  altar  of 
the  "  old  services  of  the  Jewish  temple,  where  the  transaction  (i.  e.,  the 
sacrifices  of  atonement,  propitiation,  &c.)  of  the  altar  served  to  mediate  ob- 
jectively between  the  Hearer  of  prayer  and  His  worshipping peojile."  It 
is  true  that  after  the  phrase  "  Christian  altar,"  as  after  the  word  ''  altar  " 
in  the  preceding  sentence,  no  mention  is  made  of  ^'■priest."  But  this  is 
merely  an  ellipsis,  and  the  word  is  so  clearly  implied  that  it  will  suggest 
itself  to  every  reader's  mind. 

By  this  new  theory  of  worship,  therefore,  the  old  Levitical  idea  of 
worshipping  God  through  a  visible  propitiatory  sacrifice  offered  upon 
an  altar,  and  through  a  mediating  priesthood,  is  to  be  actualized  in  full  an- 
titypal  form,  in  the  cultus  which  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  disciples  hope  to  per- 
suade the  German  Reformed  Church  to  accept.  If  the  declarations  of 
the  author  and  endorsers  of  the  "  Liturgical  Question  "  do  not  mean  this, 
there  is  no  sense  in  their  language.  And  although  the  author  of  that 
tract  may  often  have  said  things  which  were  not  understood,  he  seems  to  have 
written  lucidly  enough  in  this  case.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  theory  of 
the  Church  upon  which  Dr.  N.  says,  the  Revised  Liturgy  rests.  Accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  the  order  of  salvation  is  as  follows :  To  be  pardoned 
and  saved,  and  worship  God  acceptably,  men  must  1.  in  the  Church,  2. 
through  the  minister,  3.  be  forgiven  and  4.  have  access  in  the  worship 
of  the  Church  as  mediated  by  the  minister  (this  title  has  not  yet  been 
dropped,  though  its  incompatibility  with  the  rest  of  the  theory  is  obvi- 
ous) to  God.  No  one,  therefore,  can  be  forgiven,  until  he  has  come  to 
ithe  minister  at  the  altar,  there  confessed  his  sins,  and  thus  obtained  par- 
don. In  proof  of  this  doctrine,  the  advocates  of  the  theory  appeal,  just 
as  Episcopal  ritualists  like  Pusey,  and  Roman  Catholics  do,  1.  to  the 
order  of  the  articles  in  the  Creed,  where  we  have  a.,  the  Church,  b.,  the 
Communion  of  saints,  and  then  c,  the  forgiveness  of  sins.      (Is  it  not 


THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  101 

the  acme  of  philosophical  sagacity!);  and  2.  to   the  much  abused  pas- 
sages about  loosing  and  binding,  and  remitting  and  not  remitting  sins. 

With  great  propriety  might  Dr.  Nevin  acknowledge,  in  view  of  this 
very  mai-ked  peculiarity  of  his  new  scheme  as  it  has  now  been  developed, 
that  it  involves  a  question  of  very  "  material  change  in  our  Church  life." 
How  decided  and  how  hopeless  the  antagonism  between  a  system  of  wor- 
ship which  encourages  every  believer  to  feel  that  his  access  to  God,  Ilis 
reconciled  Father  in  heaven,  is  immediate,  direct,  free,  spiritual,  through 
the  one  and  only  High-priest  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  a  cultus 
which  seeks  to  cultivate  in  every  believer's  heart  the  assurance  of  his  own 
priestly  prerogative  before  the  spiritual  throne  of  grace,  and  spiritual  al- 
tar of  praise  and  prayer,  and  to  embolden  each  one  to  draw  confidently 
near  to  that  throne,  even  as  into  the.  lioUest  of  all^  as  that  is  to  he  found  in  its 
true  spiritual  sense  wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  the  name 
of  Jesiis  Christy  even  though  the  Lord's  Supper  should  not  be  each  time 
celebrated;  and  a  system  which  says  to  God's  people  that  they  may  not 
worship  their  Lord  thus  siihjectivelt/^  thus  spiritualisticallij ,  thus  Gnosti- 
calli/,  but  that  they  must  approach  him  through  the  visible  altar  and  its 
mediating  priest ! 

"Ridiculous  fuss,"  says  Dr.  Nevin,  "Spooks  in  the  garret,"  echoes  the 
classic  Dr.  Harbaugh.  But  let  them  mock  and  ridicule.  Only  we  will 
not  be  thus  laughed  and  derided  into  a  surrender  of  "the  liberty  where- 
with Christ  has  made  us  free,"  and  into  renewed  subjection  to  the  "yoke  of 
bondage"  cast  oif  by  our  fathers.  I  have  not  forgotten  the  disingenuous- 
ness  with  which  Dr.  Harbaugh  sought  at  York  to  evade  the  charge  that 
the  new  "Order"  involved  the  virtual  restoration  of  a  propitiatory  altar 
and  a  specific  mediating  priesthood.  Nor  am  I  insensible  how  hard  it  is 
to  get  the  Church  at  large  to  believe  that  any  such  radical  revolution  in 
our  doctrines  concerning  worship,  the  Church,  and  the  ministry,  is  really 
contemplated  and  pressed.  But  I  persist  in  the  charge,  and  the  more 
earnestly  as  none  of  the  leaders  of  the  new  measures  have  dared  cordial- 
ly to  meet  it,  and  still  less  squarely  to  deny  it.  There  is  indeed  a  pre- 
tence of  restoring  to  the  dear  people  their  rights  in  public  worship :  to 
let  them  orally  participate,  and  so  forth.  But  it  is  to  be  hoped,  and  may 
well  be  believed,  that  the  dear  people  will  be  altogether  too  sagacious  to 
be  caught  by  any  such  specious  bait  as  that.  They  know  too  well  the  old 
story  of  sacerdotal  aggressions,  and  the  bribes  by  which  they  succeeded, 
in  the  great  Apostasy;  they  know  too  well  by  what  gracious  concessions 
to  the  people,  the  arrogant  priesthood  of  that  Apostasy  still  contrives  to 
maintain  its  spiritual  supremacy  over  them. 

3.  The  RITUALISTIC  character  of  the  new  Order  is  another  element 
which  renders  it  hostile  to  the  legitimate  cultus  of  the  Reformed  Church. 


102  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

As  this  charge  has  been  pronounced  groundless  and  absurd,  it  will  be 
well  to  "-ive  it  special  attention.  The  first  point  to  be  settled  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  ritualistic. 

Although  the  words  "liturgy"  and  "ritual,"  with  their  derivatives,  are 
often  used  interchangeably  in  common  language,  they  are  not  really  syno- 
nymous. The  former  refers  to  the  act  of  worship,  in  the  use  of  suitable 
forms  or  without  such  forms;  while  the  latter  refers  to  the  outward  man- 
ner the  rites  and  ceremonies  which  may  be  associated  with  that  worship. 
All  worship  must,  of  course,  be  rendered  in  some  form,  and  that  form 
might  be  called  a  rite,  or  ritual ;  and  hence  it  might  be  said  that  all  wor- 
ship, even  liturgical,  must  be  ritualistic.  But  this  is  not  the  exact  and 
proper  import  of  the  term.  It  refers  strictly,  to  some  sj^ecial  ceremonial, 
artistic  or  aesthetic,  superadded  to  those  forms  or  acts  which  are  indispen- 
sable to  the  performance  of  worship  at  all.  This  is,  indeed,  conceded  in 
the  Liturg.  Question  (pp.  18,  60).  A  Ritualistic  style  of  worship  is,  there- 
fore, clearly  distinguishable  from  a  simply  Liturgical  mode  of  worship. 
The  latter  is  characterized  by  the  use  of  only  such  forms  and  actions  as  are 
indispensable;  the  former  invests  these  forms  and  services  with  extra 
drapery  and  ceremonies,  for  the  purpose,  avowedly,  of  making  those  ser- 
vices more  interesting  and  impressive.  The  number  and  character  of 
these  additions  may  vary.  The  ritualism  of  the  Greek  and  Romish 
Churches  varies,  and  that  of  the  ultra  high-church  Puseyism  by  which 
the  Episcopal  Church  is  now  being  so  sorely  vexed,  differs  somewhat  from 
both.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  that  an  "  Order  of  Worship,"  say 
like  Dr.  Nevin's,  should  minutely  prescribe  what  vestments  the  "priest" 
should  wear,  how  the  "  altar  "  should  be  decorated  on  certain  "high  days," 
or  go  into  nice  details  about  the  '■'■risings  and  howings^"  and  the  "turn- 
ing of  all  faces  towards  the  altar,"  as  the  '■'■  shekinah  fortJi  from  icliicli  must 
radiate  continually  the  ENTIRE  GLORY  OF  God's  HOUSE."  (Liturgical 
Question,  p.  29).  The  "Order"  may  be  exceedingly  reserved  upon  all 
such  minute  things.  And  yet  it  may  be  essentially  and  unqualifiedly 
ritualistic. 

For  this  term,  again,  has  a  relative  sense.  What  might  hardly  be 
termed  ritualism  for  another  Church,  may  be  decidedly  ritualistic  for  ours. 
That  the  new  "Order,"  therefore,  can  not  be  fairly  called  ritualistic  in 
comparison  with  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  may  be  readily  granted. 
This,  however,  is  no  criterion  for  our  Church.  The  true  measure  by 
which  we  must  try  the  new  "  Order,"  is  not  the  Episcopal,  but  the  Re- 
formed standard  of  worship. 

Tried  by  this  standard,  our  judgment  upon  it  will  be  found  correct,  and 
this,  too,  by  the  concessions  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  immediate  assistants  in 
completing  the  work.     Only  let  the  contrast  they  themselves  have  drawn 


THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  103 

between  the  legitimate  Reformed  type  of  worship,  and  that  which  they 
have  adopted,  be  carefully  pondered,  as  set  forth  in  the  following  quota- 
tions from  their  own  tract: 

"It  is  to  be  freely  admitted  that  there  lay  in  the  distinguishing  spirit 
of  the  Reformed  Confession,  as  such,  from  the  beginning,  a  tendency  in 
opposition  to  the  constraint  of  fixed  religious  rites  and  ceremonies.  It 
belongs,  as  we  all  know,  to  the  Reformed  Church,  to  represent  that  side  of 
the  Christian  li/e^  in  which  the  jnward,  the  free,  the  spiritual  in  religion, 
are  asserted  against  the  authority  of  the  merely  outicard  in  every  view. 
Such  is  her  historical  vocation;  such  is  her  genius.  While  we  honor* 
then  the  constitutional  character  or  the  Reformed  Church,  in  the  general 
view  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  we  ought  to  be  willing  to  admit  that 
it  carried  in  it  a  tendency  to  what  we  may  call  extreme  simplicity  and  spi- 
ritualism, over  against  the  worship  of  the  Catholic  Church,"  etc.  (Liturg. 
Question,  40,  41). 

"The  Reformed  Confession  from  the  beginning,  if  we  except  the  Epis- 
copal portion  of  it  in  England,  for  reasons  which  it  is  not  now  necessary  to 
consider,  7ias  not  heen  favorahle  to  much  outward  form  or  ritual  action  in 
worship."     (Liturg.  Ques.  p.  60). 

Although  this  does  not  tell  the  whole  truth  in  regard  to  the  great  sim- 
plicity and  spirituality  of  Reformed  worship,  and  although  it  does  not 
delineate  it  fairly  even  as  far  as  the  statements  go,  the  picture  fully  answers 
our  purpose.  A  man  of  Dr.  Nevin's  deep  and  bitter  "prejudices"  against 
the  essential  and  material  characteristics  of  Reformed  practice,  and  one  of 
his  strong  partialities  for  a  very  different  style  of  piety  and  worship,  could 
hardly  be  expected  to  describe  fairly  and  truly  the  cultus  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  or  to  estimate  properly  the  principles  on  which  that  cultus  rests. 
And  yet  any  attempt  to  do  this  at  all,  could  hardly  fail  to  let  out  enough 
historical  truth  to  answer  our  end.  According  to  his  own  admission,  then, 
every  thing  ritualistic  in  worship,  was  most  alien  and  contrary  to  the  dis- 
tinguishing spirit  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

What  now  is  the  distinguishing  spirit  and  character  of  the  "  Order  of 
Worship"  which  Dr.  Nevin  would  persuade  this  extremely  simple  and 
spiritualistic  Church  to  substitute  for  Ber  old,  historical  and  legitimate 
mode  ? 

Again  we  let  the  advocates  of  this  Order  describe  it  in  their  own  words, 
that  all  who  are  willing  to  be  convinced  may  see  that  it  is  not  charged 


*  "  The  words  of  his  mouth  were  smoother  than  butter,  but  war  was  in  his  heart;  his 
words  were  softer  than  oil,"  etc.  Is  it  by  such  bland  flatteries  that  Dr.  N.  seeks  to 
manipulate  the  Church  into  acquiescence  in  the  revolutionary  scheme?  "And  Joab  said 
unto  Amasa,  Art  thou  in  health,  my  brother?  And  Joab  took  Amasa  by  the  beard  to  kiss 
him.  But  Amasa  took  no  heed  to  the  sword  that  was  in  Joab's  hand ;  so  Joab  smote  him 
therewith  in  the  fifth  rib ;  and  he  died." 


104  THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION. 

unjustly  with  being  ritualistic,  and  that  in  a  very  strong  sense  for  a  Church 
Jike  ours. 

According  to  Dr.  Nevin  and  those  who  adopt  his  peculiar  views  upon 
this  subject,  every  ''true  liturgy"  must  possess  such  characteristics  as 
are  indicated  in  the  following  statements  :  "  It  must  be  confessed,  how- 
ever, that  mere  forms  of  prayer  are  not  enough  of  themselves  to  mahe  the 
services  of  the  sanctuary  what  they  ought  to  he  in  the  view  now  brought 
into  notice.  *  *  There  must  be  gestures  and  postures  significant  of 
faith  in  what  the  service  thus  means,  ACTS  of  bodily  avorship  fitly 
suited  to  corresponding  acts  of  the  spirit,  responses  of  the 
tongue  to  seal  and  confirm  the  silent  responses  of  the  heart."  (Lit.  2, 
pp.  32,  33.) 

What  particular  "acts  of  bodily  worship,"  &c.,  should  accompany, 
precede,  or  follow  the  "  responses  of  the  tongue,"  &c.,  we  are  left  to  sur- 
nlise.  It  is  perfectly  easy,  however,  to  discern  the  direction  in  which  such 
things  point.  Among  ritualistic  practices  which  high-church  Episcopa- 
lians are  introducing  into  their  services,  there  is  one  called  "  Orientation.'^ 
That  is,  whenever  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  used  in  the  services,  the 
worshipper,  no  matter  how  he  may  have  been  standing,  turns  quite 
around  with  his  face  to  the  East  (the  Orient)  and  makes  one  or  three  low 
hows.^  This,  then,  to  some  minds,  seems  a  "  bodily  act  of  worship  fitly 
suited  to  a  corresponding  act  of  the  Spirit." 

'■  It  will  not  do  to  call  these  things  the  idle  mummery  of  superstition." 
(Will  the  reader  please  refer  to  one  of  the  quotations  from  Dr.  Nevin's 
views  in  1844,  as  given  on  p.  27  of  this  tract.)  "  If  they  seem  mummery 
to  any,  it  can  only  be,  most  assuredly,  because  they  have  themselves  no 
lively  sense  of  the  true  nature  of  Christian  worship  in  the  view  just  de- 
scribed. *  *  *  Devotional  forms,  then,  the  outward  actings  and 
utterings  of  worship  on  the  part  of  the  people  are  not  only  to  he  tolerated 
in  the  services  of  the  sanctuary,  they  are  to  BE  ENJOINED  as  the 
necessary  condition  of  worship  in  a  truly  spiritual  form.  *  *  Let  the 
outward  and  the  inward  here  go  hand  in  hand  togetjier.  Let  it  be  con- 
sidered a  part  of  religion  to  do  hodily  reverence,  in  all  j^^'oper  ivays,  to 
the  sacramental  hohness,  which  fe  felt  to  inhabit  the  house  of  God.  Let 
there  be  rising  and  hawing,  where  it  may  seem  to  be  meet,  in  token  of  the 
consenting  adorations  of  the  people." 

So  much,  then,  for  the  verbal  declarations  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  others  in 
regard  to  their  ideal  of  worship.  They  seem  explicit  enough,  and  quite 
frank.  And,  taken  in  connection  with  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  were  made,  interpreted  by  the  contrast  which  they  are  intended  to 

*  Not  long  ago,  a  student  of  ritualistic  fancy  in  an  Evangelical  Divinity  School, left 
the  institution  because  such  superstitious  "  mummery,"  as  Dr.  Nevin  once  called  this  sort 
of  thing,  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the  Faculty! 


THE    LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  105 

esliibit  between  this  new  sort  of  cultus  and  that  of  our  Church  in  past 
years,  they  plainly  indicate  the  reigning  spirit  and  certain  tendency  of  the 
new  system.  For  when  they  speak  of  doing  "  bodily  reverence,"  of  com- 
bining the  outward  with  the  inward,  of  the  superiority  of  a  worship  not 
purely  spiritual,  &c.,  it  is  clear  that  something  different  is  meant  from  the 
mode  of  worship,  which  has  all  along,  with  more  or  less  regularity,  pre- 
vailed in  our  Church.  In  a  very  real  and  true  sense,  we  have  always 
heen  accustomed  to  unite  the  soul  and  hody^  the  outward  and  inioard  form 
with  spirit  in  our  worship.  Our  fathers  and  their  ecclesiastical  de- 
scendants always  attended  bodily  upon  the  public  means  of  grace;  united 
bodily  with  their  mouth  as  well  as  heart,  in  singing  the  praises  of  the 
Lord ;  and  stood  up  bodily  doing  such  outward  reverence  in  the  house  of 
God.  It  is  true,  they  did  not  look  to  the  visible  Lord's  Table,  or  outward 
altar,  as.  in  an  evangelical  sense,  it  may  be  called  ;  they  turned  their  eyes 
heavenward,  and  their  hearts  too,  as  our  fathers  beautifully  and  truly  say 
in  their  old  Order  of  Worship,  on  which  Drs.  Nevin  and  Harbaugh  have 
cast  such  scorn.  But  still,  they  rendered  bodily  service  as  far  as  they 
thought  it  necessary  and  fit. 

This,  then,  is  not  what  is  meant  in  the  extracts  above  quoted,  by 
"  rising  and  bowing,"  and  such  like  things.  But  if  those  expressions 
mean  something  more,  something  very  significantly  different,  is  it  not 
perfectly  plain  that  they  involve  the  very  essence  of  ritualisyn  in  the 
true  and  exact  sense  of  that  term  ?  For  ritualism,  as  shown  already  in 
distinction  from  worship  (leitourgia)  in  the  stricter  sense,  consist  precisely 
in  the  addition  of  such  rites  and  ceremonies  to  that  worship.  And  this, 
DOW,  is  the  style  of  worship  found  in  the  revised  Liturgy.  The  above 
extracts  furnish  the  basis,  the  principles  on  which  they  say  that  work  was 
constructed,  as  well  as  the  author's  vindication  of  the  work  thus  formed 
and  fashioned. 

It  will,  moreover,  help  us  to  estimate  aright  these  peculiarities  of  the 
new  Order  of  Worship,  if  we  remember  another  significant  fact.  While 
the  style  of  worship  adopted  as  the  model  after  which  the  new  Order  was 
fashioned,  difiiers  so  "materially  and  essentially"  from  our  old  mode  of 
worship,  its  very  striking  resemblance  to  another  style  cannot  fail  to  arrest 
attention  and  produce  a  bewildering  impression.*  That  style  is  not  Re- 
formed, not  Lutheran,  not  Evangelical  Ejyiscopalian,  not  Moravian;  in  a 
word,  you  search  for  it  in  vain  among  any  who  care  to  call  themselves 
Protestant  Christians.  What  is  it  then  ?  Where  may  an  illustration  of 
it  be  found  ?  Let  me  answer  as  gently  as  possible,  by  pointing  out  again, 
in  its  own  phrases,  a  few  of  the  most  prominent  features  or  this  new 

*  Dr.  Nevin  will  please  prepare  again  to  say  :  "Ridiculous  fuss  !"  And  Dr.  Harbaugh 
will  get  ready  to  echo,  with  classic  variation:  "Spooks  in  the  garret!" — The  reader  will 
please  remember  that  I  quote  their  own  words. 


106  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

thing  in  the  Reformed  Church,  and  then  by  asking  two  or  three  simple 
questions. 

1.  "^'Ae  altar,  and  not  the  pulpit,  is  to  he  regarded  as  the  central  object 
of  the  sanct^iary — THE  place  op  the  Christian  shekinah  forth  from 
which  MUST  radiate  continually  the  entire  glory  of  God's  house. 

2.  "  Do  bodily  reverence  in  all  proper  ways,  to  the  sacramental  holiness 
which  is  felt  to  inhabit  the  house  of  God.  Let  all  faces  be  turned  in  time 
of  prayer  toxoard  the  altar." 

3.  "  Let  there  be  risings  and  bowings  *  *  in  token  of  the  consenting 
adorations  of  the  people." 

Now  take  these  three  marks  of  what  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  friends  call  true 
worship,  and  which  they  proclaim  essential  to  true  worship,  marks  without 
which  nothing  ought  to  pretend  to  be  worship — take  these  marks,  the  im- 
portance of  which  Dr.  Nevin  and  others  unhappily  involved  in  his  delusion, 
magnify  so  greatly,  take  them,  and  go  around  among  the  Churches  and 
tell  me  where  do  you  find  them  realized?  Where  do  you  find  the  altar 
made  the  central  part  of  the  sanctuary,  the  place  of  the  Christian  sheki- 
nah forth  from  which  must  radiate  continually  the  entire  glory  of  God's 
house?  Where  do  you  think  Dr.  Nevin  saw  the  "beautiful"  picture 
which  suggested  this  brilliant  figure  of  speech?  Can  you  say?  And 
where,  again,  do  you  find  the  congregation  doing  bodily  reverence,  to  the 
sacramental  holiness  in  the  house  of  God,  all  faces  being  turned  toioard 
the  altar?  And  where,  finally,  do  you  witness  numerous  "  risings  and  bow- 
ings in  token  of  the  consenting  adorations  of  the  people  "  (still  turned  with 
earnest  gaze  toward  the  altar)?  Does  not  every  reader,  who  lives  within 
reach  of  a  Roman  Catholic  Church,  or  who  has  ever  read  of  their  style  of 
worship,  know  where  these  things  are  to  be  found  ? 

Will  any  one  deny  now  that  this  new  Order,  embodying  such  elements  as 
its  essential  constituents,  and  marked  so  broadly  by  such  inseparable  charac- 
teristics, '\%  properly  called  ritualistic  ?  Let  a  church  edifice  be  built  ac- 
cording to  its  ideal,  and  the  inner  structure  and  arrangements  will  be 
found  in  harmony  with  that  model  which  makes  the  Lord's  table  an  altar, 
sets  that  altar  on  high,  in  some  most  prominent  central  place,  and  locates 
the  Word,  or  its  symbol,  the  pulpit,  below  and  aside.  Enter  a  church  in 
which  the  services  are  conducted  according  to  this  new  "■  Order,"  and  you 
will  find  the  forms  and  movements  all  in  harmony  with  the  demands  of 
ritualistic  action.  And  now,  when  we  remember  that  the  end  is  not  yet; 
that  the  new  "  Order"  bears  internal  proofs  of  being  but  a  partial  deve- 
lopment of  the  theory  it  involves;  that  to  carry  out  the  system  to  its 
legitimate  end,  it  demands  arrangements  far  more  artistic  and  jesthetic 
than  any  thing  now  openly  indicated  in  the  book,  we  need  not  shrink 
from  any  of  the  raillery  or  indignation  which  may  be  excited  by  pro- 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  107 

nouncing  the  new  cultus  extremely  ritualistic  for  a  Church  like  ours,  and 
therefore  strongly  antagonistic  to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  Reformed  wor- 
ship. That  these  ritualistic  elements  and  characteristics  may  not  protrude 
themselves  very  boldly,  or  that  many  who  have  looked  into  the  Revised 
Liturgy,  or  even  been  present  when  portions  of  its  services  were  used,  may 
not  have  discovered  them,  is  not  evidence  that  they  are  not  inherent  in 
the  system,  and  essential  to  it.  In  order  to  judge  aright  in  this  case,  it  is 
necessary  to  see  the  thing  in  full  operation,  to  be  present  when  the 
service,  especially  the  Lord's  Supper  service,  is  performed  exactly  ac- 
cording to  the  book.  This  I  have  never  yet  seen  done,  and  I  suppose 
that  few,  if  any  of  our  members,  have  been  present  at  any  public  service 
when  it  was  done.  At  Dayton  there  was  a  good  deal  of  it,  so  much  that 
all  but  the  zealous  disciples  of  Dr.  Nevin  in  this  matter,  felt  that  it  was 
extreme  and  offensive.  And  yet  the  whole  Communion  Service  was  not 
used  at  Dayton,  and  in  that  which  was  used,  as  far  as  I  saw  the  "risings 
and  bowings  "  did  not  appear.  It  is  often  said,  indeed,  that  the  full  ser- 
vices are  used  here  and  there,  strictly  according  to  the  rubrical  directions 
of  the  book,  and  in  such  instances  the  people  suppose  that  they  have  seen 
the  whole  of  it.  And  yet  I  know  some  congregations  in  which  this  is 
supposed  to  be  done,  in  which  it  is  not  done.  So  the  people  are  under 
the  impression  that  they  have  seen  the  entire  service,  when  they  have 
really  witnessed  but  a  part  of  it.  The  "  prudence  "  of  this  course  is  not 
questioned.  For  those  who  are  intent  upon  introducing  the  innovations 
without  exciting  too  violent  and  open  opposition,  without  letting  the  peo- 
ple scarcely  know  what  the  design  is,  it  is  wise,  no  doubt,  to  introduce  the 
thing  gradually.  They  may  thus  by  degrees  become  accustomed  to  it, 
and  gradually  be  able  to  bear  more.  Church  history,  especially  from  the 
third  and  fourth  century  onwards,  furnishes  abundant  illustrations  of  the 
success  of  such  policy.  But  the  "wisdom"  of  this  "policy"  is  not  in  dis- 
cussion just  now.  The  point  is,  that  in  this  way  there  may  be  a  great 
many  things  pertaining  to  the  system  of  cultus  contained  in  this  book, 
which  the  people  may  not  discover.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  cultus 
of  the  Revised  Liturgy  is  essentially  and  really  ritualistic,  and  that  so  far 
as  its  ruling  principles  are  concerned,  in  an  extreme  degree;  especially  in 
contrast  with  the  legitimate  Liturgical  worship  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

4.  A  ybi(?-^7i  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  new  "  Order  of  Wor- 
ship," which  places  it  in  irreconcilable  antagonism  to  our  historical  Re- 
formed cultus,  is  exhibited  in  the  extreme  significance  and  virtue  which  it 
assigns  to  the  objective  element  in  worship,  to  the  implied  disparagement 
and  repudiation  of  the  subjective  element.  In  one  sense,  this  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  root  of  the  ritualistic  peculiarities.  Practically  and  popu- 
larly, however,  it  is  the  fruit  and  effect  of  those  peculiarities 


108  TIIE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  point  is  not,  that  true  objective  virtue  or 
efficacy  is  assigned  to  the  means  of  grace,  but  that  this  is  done  in  an  ex- 
treme  way^  in  a  manner  -which  involves  a  virtual  setting  aside  of  the  im- 
portance of  personal  qualifications,  or,  to  use  a  favorite  Mercersburg  ex- 
pression, subjective  conditions.  That  the  means  of  grace  are  invested  by 
God  with  supernatural  virtue  in  themselves,  and  do  not  receive  their  vir- 
tue or  efficacy  from  the  persons  (subjects)  using  them,  is  a  doctrine  held 
by  all  evangelical  Christians.  And  when  Dr.  Nevin,  or  any  brethren  who 
permit  themselves  to  reiterate  his  views  without  duly  examining  them,  say 
that  this  is  denied  by  any  evangelical  Church,  the  Lutheran,  the  Mora- 
vian, the  Presbyterian,  the  genuine  portion  of  the  Episcopal,  or  even  the 
Methodist,  Churches,  it  is  simply  bearing  false  witness  against  sister  deno- 
minations. It  may  serve  very  well  to  amuse  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  unqualified 
adherents  and  admirers,  to  display  their  skill  in  casting  down  and  hewing 
to  pieces  men  of  straw  thus  shrewdly  set  up.  Our  unhappy  friend  seems 
to  have  found  special  delight  in  this  sort  of  gladiatorship  for  many  years. 
But  all  will  not  avail  in  the  end.  We  who  dare  to  diifer  from  Dr.  Nevin 
on  some  important  points,  hold  just  what  we  hold,  and  not  whatever  erro- 
neous or  absurd  views  he  may  impute  to  us.  His  mere  declaration  cannot 
make  heretics  out  of  those  who  cleave  honestly  and  firmly  to  the  essential 
doctrines  of  all  the  Evangelical  Reformed  Confessions,  any  more  than  he 
can  make  those  Confessions  of  faith  harmonize  with  and  justify  the  high- 
church,  sacerdotal  ritualistic  theology,  in  whose  knotty  meshes  he  has  al- 
lowed himself  to  become  entangled,  and  by  which  he  has  unfortunately  en- 
snared so  many  who  trust  unsuspectingly  to  his  guidance  and  follo'w  with 
docile  obedience  his  footsteps. 

But  whilst  all  evangelical  Christians  believe  in  an  objective  virtue  in 
the  means  of  grace,  they  hold  to  this  in  full  harmony  with  what  the  Holy 
Scriptures  teach,  and  what  the  true.  Church  has  always  maintained,  con- 
cerning the  corresponding  necessity  for  suitable  personal  qualifications.  It 
is  at  this  point,  now,  that  the  new  "  Order"  betrays  a  departure  from  the 
faith  of  the  Evangelical  Church,  and  a  strong  bias  towards  a  doctrine  which 
is  essentially  inimical  to  that  faith.  This  doctrine  is  usually  designated 
by  the  phrase  opus  operatuvi.  the  literal  meaning  of  which  is  a  loork  worJced, 
or  a  deed  done;  that  is,  that  there  is  such  inherent  absolute  efficacy  in 
the  means  of  grace,  that  the  mere  outward  attendance  upon  them,  or  for- 
mal participation  in  them,  will  work  their  eS"ect  upon  the  subject,  without 
regard,  or  at  least  without  much  regard  to  personal  fitness.  According  to 
this  theory,  then,  a  certain  magical  efficacy  is  ascribed  to  the  means  of 
grace,  especially  to  the  Holy  Sacraments.  Taking  sophistical  advantage 
of  the  fact,  (which  no  evangelical  Christian  denies'),  that  the  means  of 
grace,  and  especially  the  Sacraments,  do  not  derive  their  virtue  from  the 


THE   LITURGICAL    QUESTION.  109 

pious  tliinhrng  and  feeling  of  the  persons  luho  use  them,  or  have  efficacy  put 
into  them  hi/  human  subjects  to  luhom  thei/  may  he  administered,  (an  error 
lohich  all  evangelical  theologians  and  Christians  would  repudiate^^^  this  sys- 
tem inculcates  the  doctrine  that  they  are  ohjectively  effcacious — that  is,  ah- 
solutely  so,  in  themselves,  to  work  the  end  of  their  institution,  upon  those 
who  participate  in  them  or  receive  them.  Of  the  inconsistency  of  this  doc- 
trine with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  of  its  pernicious  moral  effects,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  speak.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  know  that  it  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  our  Church. 

In  proof,  now,  that  the  Revised  Liturgy  favors  this  error,  is  more  or 
less  pervaded  by  its  bad  spirit,  and  rests  upon  this  theory  of  the  absolute 
objective  efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  especially  those  which  are 
inseparably  connected  with  the  office  of  the  ministry,  the  following  facts 
present  themselves  : 

1 .  The  chief  authors  and  advocates  of  the  new  "  Order  "  manifest  extra- 
ordinary zeal  against  the  prevalent  evangelical  doctrine  upon  this  subject. 
They  have  long  displayed  great  dissatisfaction  with  what  they  stigmatize 
as  subjective  Religion,  that  is,  a  religion  which  makes  account  of  personal 
piety,  of  personal  repentance,  faith,  love,  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Of  course,  they  dare  not  very  openly  denounce  these  "graces," 
but  they  mostly  speak  quite  ungraciously  of  them,  seem  to  hold  them  in 
comparative  contempt.  Because  some  fanatics  or  religious  enthusiasts 
have  run  to  extremes  in  this  way,  advantage  is  taken  of  the  fact  to  bring 
all  such  personal  piety  into  discredit.  Pietists  and  Puritans  are  especially 
obnoxious  to  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  disciples,  and  on  this  account.  All  this, 
of  course,  is  significant.  The  meaning  is,  that  this  way  of  thinking  is 
supposed  to  detract  from  the  objective  efficacy  of  the  Church  and  Church 
ordinances.  And  the  strong  and  often  exceedingly  bitter  dislike  of  this 
so-called  subjective  pietism,  shown  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  others  of  his  mind, 
should  be  particularly  significant  for  a  Church  which  has  had  to  bear  re- 
proach and  calumny  from  the  start  on  this  same  ground.  Both  blind 
Papists  and  bigoted  ultra  Lutherans  (of  the  Hesshuss  school)  were  accus- 
tomed to  apply  precisely  such  epithets  as  these  to  our  Reformed  fathers 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  Whether  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  confederates 
borrowed  the  phrases  from  thoes  foes  of  evangelical  piety  and  Church- 
liness,  I  cannot  say.  But  the  resemblance  is  so  close  as  to  suggest  such 
an  origin.     The  bearing  of  the  case  is  sufficiently  obvious.     What  they 


*"  It  has  often  been  impliedly  or  directly  charged  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  more  zealous 
disciples,  that  Protestant  theologians  teach  this  error,  at  least  in  substance.  I  deny  the 
charge,  and  challenge  Dr.  Nevin  to  prove  it,  allowing  him  to  appeal  even  to  Dick  or 
Dwight,  or  any  theological  writer  of  note  or  authority.  Of  course,  he  would  not  refer  to 
such  men  as  Pd,rker  or  Emerson ;  for  only  Papists  call  every  one  a  Protestant  who  does 
not  kiss  the  Pope's  toe. 


110  THE   LITURGICAL  QUESTION. 

denounce  is  not  a  subjectivism  whicli  denies  a  supernatural  character  to 
the  means  of  grace,  or  that  Grod  uses  them  when  He  pleases  for  the  con- 
veyance of  supernatural  grace ;  for  they  know  full  well  that  those  whom 
they  reproach  hold  no  such  view.  What  they  denounce,  or  mean  to 
denounce,  therefore,  is  that  sort  of  subjectivism  indicated  above,  which 
insists  upon  the  equal  necessity  of  personal  qualifications  or  conditions,  in 
order  that  the  blessings  promised  thr  ough  the  means  may  be  secured,  a 
doctrine  which  has  the  entire  Scripture  for  its  foundation.  And  the 
theory  on  which  the  new  '■'  Order  "  rests,  can  only  be  understood  or 
possess  any  such  significance  as  is  claimed  for  it,  on  the  ground  that  it 
teaches  a  doctrine  squarely  opposed  to  that  which  its  advocates  denounce. 
But  there  is  only  one  doctrine  in  that  direction,  and  that  is  the  opus 
operatuin  error.  * 

2.  Other  facts  which  indicate  the  same  thing  are  found  in  the  distinc- 
tive peculiarities  of  the  Sacramental  services  and  other  special  offices.  As 
illustrations,  take  the  regenerative  efiicacy  of  Baptism  taught  in  all  the  Bap- 
tismal forms ;  the  propitiative  efiicacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  considered  in 
the  sacrificial  aspect  which  characterizes  the  service  for  that  Sacrament ; 
the  power  claimed  for  the  Church  in  confirmation  ;  and  the  extremely 
high,  if  not  sacramental  virtue,  claimed  for  ordination,  in  the  service  for 
the  ordination  of  ministers.  If  anything  can  be  found  in  Evangelical 
Protestant  authorities  to  justify  the  ascription  of  such  virtue  or  objective 
efiicacy  to  the  means  of  grace,  it  has  yet  to  be  produced.  Certain  it  is, 
that  any  acknowledged  standard  of  worship  or  doctrine  in  the  Reformed 
Church  will  be  searched  in  vain  for  arguments  favoring  that  view.  I  do 
not  say  that  it  is  unqualified  opus  operatumism.  But  I  do  afiirm  that  if 
it  is  not,  it  is  a  marvel  of  close  resemblance  without  sustaining  blood 
relationship.  And,  furthermore,  if  the  doctrine  of  the  book  on  this  point 
is  not  the  error  named,  it  is  so  very  much  like  it  that  no  one  can  be 
censured  for  mistaking  the  one  for  the  other,  or  for  supposing  them  to  be 
twin  sisters. 

3.  This  judgment  receives  confirmation  also,  from  the  Church  theory/  upon 
which  the  new  "Order"  is  acknowledged  to  rest;  and,  finally,  from  the 
remarkable  depreciating  manner  in  which  some  of  the  leading  advocates 
of  the  "Order"  occasionally  write  or  speak  of  that  particular  means  of 
grace  which  seems  more  than  any  other  to  appeal  to  subjective  co-operation 
for  its  due  efi"ect.  It  will  be  understond  at  once  that  reference  is  had  to  the 
Word  written  or  preached.  For  it  has  unhappily  come  to  be  a  painfully 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  this  new  "Order"  school  founded  by  Dr. 
Nevin  and  animated  by  his  peculiar  spirit,  virtually  to  lower  the  authority 
and  power  of  the  Gospel  by  an  unscriptural  over-exaltation  of  the  sacra- 
ments.    Taking  the  system,  therefore,  at  its  own  avowed  repugnance  to 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  Ill 

the  prevalent  evangelical  view  of  the  relation  of  object  and  subject  in  the 
use  of  means  of  grace;  and  judging  it  from  its  self-chosen  resemblance  in 
form  and  speech  to  what  is  held  by  all  evangelical  Confessions  to  be  a  per- 
nicious error,  as  well  as  from  the  company  which  it  theologically  prefers; 
we  are  justified  in  charging  it  with  a  strong  bias,  if  not  full  committal  to 
the  opus  operatum  heresy.  But  if  the  facts  in  the  case  justify  this  charge, 
as  I  greatly  fear  they  do,  the  new  "  Order"  must,  on  this  ground  again, 
be  declared  irreconcilably  antagonistic  to  the  faith  and  cultus  of  the  Re- 
formed Church. 

4.  The  last  leading  characteristic  of  the  new  "  Order "  by  which  it 
stands  in  hostility  to  our  legitimate  Reformed  cultus,  is  its  exclusion  of  free 
prayer.  That  this  is  done  will  not  be  denied  by  any  ingenuous  advocate 
of  the  system.  The  very  theory  of  worship  on  which  the  .whole  "Order" 
rests,  is  necessarily  intolerant  of  fi-ee  prayer.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Har- 
baugh  and  one  or  two  others  try  to  husli  tlie  complaints  likely  to  arise  upon 
a  discovery  of  this  part  in  the  programme,  and  promises  that  the  fetters 
shall  not  be  suddenly  imposed.  The  system  will  deal  gently  with  the 
Churchy  and  only  by  degrees  enforce  its  principles.  And  then  to  justify 
this  prospective  withdrawal  of  our  inherited  Gospel  liberty,  Dr.  Harbaugh 
by  a  slight  historical  mistake  tried  to  prove  that  a  certain  French  Protes- 
tant enthusiast,  Labaddie,  had  introduced  free  prayer  into  the  Reformed 
Church,  and  had  been  deposed  for  so  doing.  But  Dr.  Schaff  set  his  er- 
ring pupil  right  at  York  in  regard  to  this  point,  so  that  we  shall  probably 
have  no  more  appeals  to  the  case  of  Labaddie  as  a  justification  of  the  repu- 
diation of  free  prayer  by  the  new  "Order"  and  its  chief  vindicators. 

Dr.  Nevin  knew  better  than  to  make  any  pretence  in  favor  of  free 
prayer.  After  the  wholesale  condemnation  of  the  practice  in  which  he 
had  indulged  in  1862,  and  especially  after  having  been  reminded  of  that 
vehement  tirade  against  the  believer's  great  prerogative,  as  I  took  the 
liberty  of  doing  in  my  former  tract,  it  would  hardly  have  done  to  deny  the 
charge  in  any  direct  and  positive  way.  And  it  is  simply  a  fact  which 
cannot  be  denied,  in  the  face  of  the  full  and  explicit  exposition  which  the 
Committee  has  given  of  the  theory  of  worship  upon  which  the  new 
"Order"  is  avowedly  constructed,  as  well  as  in  the  face  of  the  book  itself. 
Where  can  free  prayer  come  in,  if  the  directions  of  the  book  are  followed? 
There  is  no  place  for  it  in  any  of  the  services.  This  constitutes  a  very 
material  difi'erence  between  it  and  the  Provisional  Liturgy.  Will  any 
advocate  of  the  system  say,  "you  can  substitute  a  free  prayer  as  often  as 
you  please  for  one  of  the  prescribed  ones ;"  then  we  answer  that  this  is 
begging  the  question.  For  that  matter  something  else  might  be,  and  it 
is  trusted  will  be  substituted  for  the  whole  book.  But  the  real  point  is, 
howcloes  the  system  view  free  prayer,  and  xchat  does  it  propose  to  do  toith 


112  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

it?  And  to  these  questions  the  answer  must  be  that  tlie  system  regards 
free  prayer  with  abhonnce,  and  desires  to  have  it  wholly  abolished  from 
our  Church. 

That  this  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  Ptef'ormed 
worship,  will  not  be  questioned  by  any  one  who  cares  for  his  reputation  as 
a  scholar.  vVs  shown  on  a  previous  page,  the  earliest  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  leaves  room  for  free  prayer.  But  even  if  no  such  specific  provi- 
sion for  it  had  been  made,  even  could  we  not  show  by  documentary  evi- 
dence that  this  was  the  fact,  and  the  practice,  we  have  what  some  of  the 
advocates  of  the  new  ''  Order  "  seem  at  times  to  regard  as  superior  to  the 
written  Word,  we  have  the  testimony  of  tradition  in  evidence  of  the  fact. 
Free  prayer  has  been  so  long  authorized  and  practised,  in  connection  with 
the  occasional  use  of  prescribed  forms — for  so  long  a  time,  that  Dr.  Har- 
baugh,  in  his  great  zeal  to  prove  it  a  modern  (puritanic?)  innovation, 
over  hastily  seizes  upon  a  phantom  supposed  to  be  discovered  in  the  case 
of  an  erratic  French  Brother  (Labaddie  was  Reformed,  and  probably  more 
so  than  some  who  affect  the  name  now,  and  under  its  cover  seek  to  revolu- 
tionize the  Church  as  poor  L.  is  charged  with  having  done).  And 
having  made  this  supposed  discovery,  it  is  employed  to  demonstrate  that 
free  prayer  is  a  modern  innovation  upon  the  law  of  our  Church,  introduced 
only  two  hundred  and  tweniy-Jivc  or  thirty  years  af/o^  that  is,  'dhoMi  fifty  or 
sixty  years  after  the  founding  of  our  Church !  The  point  must  be  quite 
apparent.  We  have  two  centuries  and  a  quarter  of  Reformed  practice 
certainly  for  free  prayer,  to  a  half  a  century,  or  three-score  years  doubt- 
fully against  it.  And  this  by  the  reluctant  acknowledgment  of  the  ene- 
mies of  free  prayer ! 

Nor  is  this  all.  It  is  universally  conceded — indeed,  the  fact  is  too 
patent  to  be  denied,  that  the  fathers  of  our  Church  aimed  at  establishing 
her  cultus  on  the  Apostolic  basis.  Now,  free  prayer  was  more  common 
in  the  primitive  Church  than  the  use  of  prescribed  forms.  Consequently, 
the  adoption  of  free  prayer  in  connection  with  the  occasional  use  of  pre- 
scribed forms,  was  a  natural  and  legitimate  development  of  the  genius  and 
spirit  of  the  Reformed  Church.  And  why  should  she  not  develop  '-for- 
ward rather  than  backwards,  and  upward  rather  than  outward  ?"  (See 
extract  fiom  Dr.  Nevin  on  p.  27  of  this  tract.) 

As  a  further  proof  of  the  original  recognition  and  practice  of  Free 
prayer  in  the  Reformed  Church,  it  might  be  legitimately  argued,  that  if 
the  unvarying  use  of  prescribed  forms  was,  from  the  first,  enforced,  and 
was  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  our  early  cultus,  it  is  not  likely  that 
those  forms  would  ever  have  been  partially  supplanted  by  free  prayer.  It 
has  not  been  so  in  the  Anglican  or  Episcopal  Church  !  And  in  the  case 
of  Continental  Reformed  Churches  there  was  as  much  civil  and  ecclesiasti- 


THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION.  113 

cal  autliority  to  effect  the  observance  of  prescribed  forms^  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Anglican  Church. 

lu  every  view  of  the  matter,  therefore,  the  recognition  and  practice  of 
free  prayer,  in  combination  with  the  use  of  prescribed  forms,  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  legitimate  and  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  Reformed 
cultus.  This  is  a  legacy  which  those  who,  by  blessed  experience,  have 
learned  to  know  its  value,  will  be  loath  to  surrender.  It  is  a  trust  com- 
mitted to  the  custody  of  our  Church  to  which  she  will  most  assuredly  not 
prove  unfaithful.  She  will  not  permit  her  children'  to  be  deprived  of  a 
prerogative  guaranteed  by  the  Lord  himself,  rescued  from  the  grasp  of 
hierarchical  and  sacerdotal  tyranny  by  our  Reformed  fathers,  and  to  which 
they  now  have  a  birthright  title.  She  will  preserve  and  transmit  to  her 
spiritual  posterity  this  precious  privilege  of  free  access  to  the  throne  of 
grace  wiih  such  burdens  of  prayer  as  may  from  time  to  time  oppress  the 
heart.  Suitable  forms  of  prayer  will  not  be  discarded  ;  a  Liturgy  to  aid 
in  the  decorous  observance  of  public  worship,  and  to  furnish  appropriate 
services,  especially  for  special  occasions,  will  be  provided.  But  no  such 
prepared  forms  will  be  allowed  to  eradicate  free  prayer  whenever  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  is  as  really  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  supplication  for  the 
Church  of  the  nineteenth  century,  as  he  was  for  the  Church  of  the  fourth, 
may  prompt  to  a  devout  and  believing  use  of  the  privilege.  And  the 
"  Order  of  Worship,"  which  aims  at  the  abrogation  of  this  precious 
Christian  right,  is  an  enemy  to  the  spirit  and  genius,  and  a  subverter  of 
the  legitimate  cultus  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

These,  then,  are  the  broad  diversities,  the  irreconcilable  antagonisms 
which  exist  essentially  between  the  two  systems  of  worship,  brought  now 
into  open  collision,  through  the  attempt  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  associates 
to  force  the  new  Order  of  Worship  upon  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
Should  not  good,  unanswerable  reasons  be  furnished  by  its  advocates  be- 
fore they  ask  for  or  press  it3  introduction  ?  Should  they  not  show  by 
overwhelming  arguments,  that  the  past  cultus  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
of  all  the  Protestant  Churches  but  one,  (and  that  a  qualified  exception), 
is  unscriptural,  at  variance  with  Apostolic  and  pure  primitive  practice, 
incompatible  with  the  spirit  of  devout  worship,  and  of  far  less  moral 
power  than  the  kind  they  have  devised,  and  for  which  they  seek 
adoption  ?  But  do  they  urge  any  such  considerations,  or  sustain  what 
they  offer  as  argument  or  plea  by  any  solid  proof?  Not  at  all.  We  look 
in  vain  for  any  other  or  better  reasons  for  accepting  this  innovation  of 
theirs  upon  our  whole  life  and  practice,  than  that  it  was  so  dome  io  the 
third,  fourth  or  fifth  century,  or  that  it  is  based  upon  the  theology  of  the 
CreeAl,  as  that  was  interpreted  in  the  centuries  named.  For  I  will  not 
insult  Dr.  Nevin  by  supposing  that  the  two  or  three  appeals  made  to  the 
8 


114  THE   LITURGICAL   QUESTION. 

Old  Testament,  and  the  one  made  to  the  New  (Hebr.  13  :  10)  were  in- 
tended as  true  Scriptural  authority  for  the  special  peculiarities  of  the  new 
"  Order." 

Our  Church  is,  consequently,  asked  and  urfjed  to  repudiate  a  cultus 
which  rests  upon  inspired  authority,  upon  Apostolic  principles  and  primi- 
tive practice, — a  cultus  carefully  prepared  by  her  fathers  and  founders^  and 
adapted  by  them  to  her  true  genius  and  spirit ;  and  in  its  stead  to  adopt 
one  which  its  principal  authors  do  not  pretend  is  German  Reformed,  nor 
even  constructed  after  an  Apostolic  pattern,  but  which  theij  hold,  in  their 
own  private  judgment  (other  people  must  be  cured  in  the  employment  of  this 
dangerous  weapon)  to  be  vastly  better,  more  beautiful,  grand,  impressive, 
and  what  not,  than  any  produced  since  long  before  the  Reformation  !  Had 
ever  five  men  such  presumption  before?  Does  the  history  of  the  Church, 
replete  as  its  pages  are  with  narratives  of  strange  things,  furnish  any  ap- 
proximate analogy  to  this  case?  A  Church  coolly  asked  and  expected  to 
let  herself  be  quietly  revolutionized  in  faith  and  practice,  in  doctrine  and 
cultus,  in  soul  and  body,  to  be  "transmogrified"  from  a  true  Evangelical 
Church  of  the  Reformation,  into  a  sort  of  semi  Cyprianic  and  semi-Gre- 
gorian Church  of  the  centuries  during  which,  according  to  Dr.  Nevin  in 
1841  (and  the  facts  of  ancient  history  have  not  changed  since  then),  all 
sorts  of  Romish  quackery  had  gained  complete  ascendency  in  the  Church! 
(See  back  to  p.  27). 

This,  then,  is  the  true  issue  now  before  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  Liturgy  or  no  Liturgy.  And  when  Dr.  Nevin  says 
it  is,  he  must  be  consciously  misrepresenting  the  case.  I  know  well  that 
he  pretends  to  deny  that  the  Agenda  used  in  our  Church  were  true  Li- 
turgies. But  he  knows  that  that  is  an  assumption  of  his  own,  and  not 
justified  either  by  history  or  the  prevalent  judgment  of  the  Church.  The 
old  Palatinate  and  similar  directories  for  public  worship  were  true  Litur- 
gies, and  I  -venture  to  predict  that  in  honorable  remembrance,  and  even 
in  the  actual  imitation  of  their  essential  principles,  they  will  survive  this 
attempt  to  resuscitate,  with  sundry  modifications,  the  long  since  defunct 
and  buried  ritualism  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  For  as  the  Apos-' 
tics  were  greater  than  the  Church  fathers  of  the  degenerate  ages  named, 
so  a  cultus  patterned  after  the  model  of  Apostolic  worship  should  possess 
higher  authority  and  be  held  in  more  sacred  remembrance  than  one 
avowedly  constructed  in  imitation  of  third  and  fourth  century  models. 

Again.  The  issue  is  not,  whether  such  material  of  the  period  named 
as  may  be  in  harmony  with  a  true  evangelical  spirit,  ma}'  be  appropriated 
or  not,  in  the  preparation  of  a  new  cultus  to  be  framed  in  accordance  with 
Apostolic  and  Reformation  principles.  In  this  whole  controversy  no  one 
has  denied,  that  amidst  the  mass  of  superstitions  which  had  accumulated 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  115 

during  that  period,  precious  Gospel  gems  of  prayer  might  be  found,  and 
no  one  has  objected  to  a  judicious  appropriation  of  them.  So  that  Dr. 
Nevin  again  misrepresents  those  who  oppose  his  extreme  measures,  when 
he  says  that  tliey  insisted  upon  an  exclusive  limitation  of  the  work  to  Re- 
formation Liturgies.  But  the  point  is,  as  Dr.  Doruer  intimates  in  one  of 
the  letters  from  Berlin  appended  to  this  tract,  whether  Reformation  Li- 
turgies shall  be  wholly  ruled  out  and  ignored,  as  is  virtually  done  in  the 
new  Order  of  Worship.  In  my  former  tract  I  was  especially  explicit  on 
this  point,  and  made  what  some  advocates  of  the  innovations,  even,  re- 
garded as  very  liberal  propositions  in  the  way  of  a  fraternal  compromise. 
So  that  the  accusation  of  Dr.  Nevin  in  regard  to  this  matter  is  doubly  un- 
jiist;  and  we  are  consequently  no  longer  bound  by  the  terms  proposed  in 
that  compromise.  But  whilst  the  merits  of  some  of  the  legacies  of  the 
centuries  named  are  cheerfully  acknowledged,  and  their  title  to  a  place  in 
any  new  Liturgy  is  freely  admitted,  it  is  not  believed  wise  or  proper  to 
allow  them  to  usurp  or  even  lessen  the  claims  of  Reformation  works. 

This,  then,  is  the  true  state  of  the  Liturgical  question  now  before  our 
Church.  Let  its  merits  be  fairly  weighed.  No  side  issues  on  theological 
points  alone  should  be  allowed  to  divert  the  most  earnest  attention  from  the 
vast  interests  involved  in  the  movement,  considered  in  its  ritualistic  as- 
pects. It  is  a  question  touchitig  the  preservation  and  perpetuity  of  our 
very  life  as  a  Church.  The  adoption  of  the  new  "  Order"  is  necessarily 
the  end  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  three 
hundred  years  of  her  past  life  may  not,  indeed,  be  wholly  lost.  But  she 
will  become  a  Church  of  the  past.  Though  falsely  retaining  the  ancient 
name,  her  character,  faith  and  practice  will  be  as  different  from  what  it 
has  been  hitherto,  as  the  Church  of  the  Reformation  was  diifurent  from 
that  of  Rome.  She  will  be  a  new  sect,  deceitfully  clinging  to  an  old  and 
honored  title,  in  order  thereby  the  more  successfully  to  conceal  its  true 
schismatic  character,  and  the  more  effectually  to  accomplish  its  sectarian 
schemes. 

Having  thus  designedly  given  special  attention  to  those  points  involved 
in  this  controversy  which  relate  to  the  cultus  of  our  Church,  and  which 
present  the  practical  question  now  to  be  settled,  it  will  be  the  less  neces- 
sary to  spend  much  time  in  considering  the  remarkable  theological  deve- 
lopment, to  the  exhibition  of  which  Dr.  Nevin  devotes  the  second  half  of 
his  "Vindication." 

CHRISTOCENTRIC    THEOLOGY. 

By  this  newly-coined  title  has  it  pleased  the  author  of  the  "  Vindication 
of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  Historical  and  Theological,"  to  designate  the  pe- 
culiar theology  upon  which  that  Liturgy  is  based,  and  by  the  spirit  of 
which  it  is  s.iid  to  be  parvadsd  and  ruled.     The  novelty  of  this  term, 


116  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

is  in  full  keeping  with  the  strange  and  foreign  character  of  the  peculiar 
cultus  with  which  it  is  associated.  That  cultus,  as  has  heen  seen,  is  an 
extreme  innovation  upon  the  legitimate  Apostolic  worship  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  It  does  not  pretend  to  hear  any  essential  relationship  to  any- 
Reformed  precedents;  it  is  not  justified  at  all  hy  an  appeal  to  Reformed 
practice.  Why  then  should  there  not  be  an  equally  novel  and  alien  theo- 
logical system  to  match  it?  Such  a  system  is  avowedly  delineated  in  the 
second  part  of  the  notable  "Vindication." 

When  the  theological  objections  to  the  Revised  Liturgy,  and  even  to 
some  things  in  the  Provisional  Liturgy  already,  were  first  broached,  it  was 
done  somewhat  hesitatingly  and  hypothetically.  It  was  felt  to  be  a  very 
serious  thing  to  charge  a  book  of  which  Professors  in  our  Church  Institu- 
tions, and  especially  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  were  the  chief  authors, 
with  containing  doctrines  at  variance  with  the  doctrinal  standard  of  the 
Church.  When  some  of  those  very  expressions  and  phrases  which  now 
furnish  ground  of  doctrinal  accusations  against  the  book,  were  challenged 
in  the  Committee,  even  before  the  publication  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy, 
one  or  another  af  those  Professors  labored  to  show  that  those  challenged 
phrases  did  not  mean  what  they  were  supposed  by  the  objectors  to  mean, 
and  tried  to  prove  that  they  were  in  harmony  with  the  doctrines  of  our 
Church,  and  the  faith  of  our  fathers.  There  was  still  a  conscience  at 
work  on  the  subject  which  said:  i/ou  as  Professors  and  ministers  of  the 
German  Reformed  Churchy  who  are  under  a  solemn  oath  to  maintain 
and  defend  the  particular  doctrines  of  that  Churchy  dare  not  introduce  or 
advocate  doctrines  antagonistic  to  her  accredited,  historical  faith.  Nay^ 
yoxi  cannot  consistently  use  the  influence  of  your  position.^  and  of  the  respect 
entertained  for  you,,  in  endeavoring  to  persuade  the  Church  to  exchange 
some  fundamental  articles  of  her  faith  for  new  and  strange  doctrines. 

That  day,  however,  is  past.  All  sensitive  conscientiousness  on  this 
subject  has  yielded  to  zeal  or  ambition  to  be  the  founders  of  a  new  era  in 
the  Protestant  Church.  Timid  intimations  or  hesitating  charges  of  doc- 
trinal error  against  the  book,  are  met,  not  by  an  earnest  attempt  to  defend 
it  against  those  charges,  but  by  a  bold,  defiant  effort  to  show  that  the  pe- 
culiar theology  of  the  book  is  correct,  whether  Reformed  or  not  Reformed. 
That  it  should  be  in  harmony  with  our  standard  of  fliith,  and  with  the 
doctrines  ever  maintained  by  our  Church,  is  treated  as  a  matter  of  little 
or  no  account.  And  this,  indeed,  seems  to  be  a  favorite  notion  of  the 
leading  advocates  of  the  new  ritualistic  measures.  Did  not  Dr.  Harbaugh 
virtually  assume  this  position  in  his  inaugural  address  at  Reading,  the  ori- 
ginal copy  of  which  was  unfortunately  lost.  And  has  it  not  been  reite- 
rated more  than  once  of  late,  over  his  signature,  and  that  of  others  in  the 
G.  Ref.  Mcssevger?     It  is  now  a  prominent  part  of  the  policy  of  this 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  U7 

school  to  ignore  our  denotaiQational  rule  of  faith,  and  have  it  so  far  set 
aside,  that  if,  and  the  acknowledged  authoritative  interpretation  of  it,  may 
no  longer  impede  the  progress  of  the  "new  measures."  And  why  should 
they  not  aim  at  this?  They  have  maligned  and  spurned  our  standard  of 
worship*  in  the  most  indecorous  manner.  Why  should  they  not  at  least 
sli(/ht  or  repudiate  the  doctrinal  authority  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism? 

"Have  we  a  pope?"  they  ask.  That  is,  have  we  an  authoritative  ex- 
pounder or  exposition  of  doctrines?  Must  Mercersburg  be  bound  by  any 
such  exposition?  Of  course  the  meaning  of  all  this  is  plain,  however  con- 
tradictory of  the  theory  of  Churchliness  of  which  that  school  sometimes 
can  seem  to  make  so  much  account.  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  disciples  wish  to 
be  hampered  by  no  denominational  system  of  faith.  They  claim  the  pre- 
rogative of  making  a  system  of  their  own,  and  they  wish  that  to  become 
binding.  "  No  pope,"  therefore,  in  Dr.  Harbaugh's  sense,  means  no  doctrinal 
standard  by  which  to  restrain  the  development  of  Mercersburg  Christo- 
centricities.  Old  Dr.  Mason  said  somewhere,  long  before  Dr.  Nevin  launched 
his  anathemas  against  the  "sect  system,"  that  whenever  you  hear  a  man 
denounce  sects  very  violently,  you  may  be  sure  he  would  like  to  start  one 
himself.  So  it  seems  that  this  recently  manifested  Mercersburg  zeal 
against  a  theological  Pope,  indicates  too  plainly  to  be  mistaken,  an  aspira- 
tion of  its  own  after  autocratic  power.  One  can  hardly  help  saying  to  all 
this  sort  of  pleading,  and  from  such  a  source :  "  thy  speech  betrayeth 
thee." 

But  how  "superlatively  absurd"  for  a  school  which  has  affected  such 
profound  contempt  of  private  judgment,  and  poured  such  burning  male- 
dictions upon  it,  now  to  ask  that  the  private  judgment  and  "subjective 
vagaries  "  of  its  leader's,  should  be  made  a  standard  of  orthodoxy  among  us, 
a  balance  in  which  to  try  the  faith  not  only  of  dissentient  brethren,  but  of 
the  fathers  of  the  Church.  Olevianus,  Ursinus,  all  the  earlier  theological 
authorities,  must  be  in  error,  rather  than  that  Dr.  Nevin's  conceit  should  be 
condemned.  Nay,  the  Catechism  itself  must  be  modified  to  suit  the  view 
of  those  new  reformers! 

No  one  can  peruse  the  doctrinal  pages  of  Dr.  Nevin's  tract,  without 
getting  the  impression  that,  in  the  writer's  estimation,  the  doctrinal  stand- 
ard of  the  Church  is  of  no  account,  in  comparison  with  the  new  Christo- 
centric  revelation  he  makes,  and  the  profound  theology  which  he  teaches. 
He  silently  assumes  that  as  '■' denominniiono.l  theology  is  nothing  to  him," 
it  is  as  little  to  the  Church  of  which  he  is  a  nominal  member.     He  takes 


*  If  the  Editor  of  the  Messenger  ventures  to  deny  this,  as  he  ha.s  most  disingenuous!}' 
denied  some  other  facts,  or  allowed  them  to  be  denied  without  any  of  those  Editorial 
seholias  he  seems  so  zealous  to  append  to  articles  on  the  other  side— then  I  challenge  him 
to  republish  pp.  36,  37  and  62  of  the  "Liturgical  Questiou,"  and  the  luinority  report  to 
the  Synod  of  Chambersburg,  to  which  he  seems  to  forget  that  his  name  is  affixed. 


113  CHRISTOCENTRIO   THEOLOaT. 

it  for  granted,  it  would  seem,  that  at  sea  himself,  theologically  and  eccle- 
siastically, the  Church  also  has  torn  loose  froHQ  her  ancient,  sacred  moor- 
ings, and  is  floating  about  in  search  of  a  harbor.  And  in  all  this  he  pro- 
fessedly speaks  not  for  himself  only  but  for  others. 

And  is  it  possible  that  in  these  bold  and  revolutionary  assumptions  the 
leadin"-  advocates  of  the  new  "  Order"  are  right?  I  cannot  believe  it.  It 
is  not  true  that  the  Church  has  tamely  placed  her  faith  as  a  lump  of  wax 
into  the  hands  of  three  or  four  men,  to  be  moulded  and  shaped  to  suit 
recently  discovered  Christocentric  conceits.  It  is  not  true  that  the  authors 
of  the  Revised  Liturgy  were  commissioned  and  employed  to  use  it  as  a 
means  for  insinuating  strange,  and,  if  our  past  creed  has  been  true,  most 
false  and  pernicious  doctrines  into  the  Church.  The  peculiarities  of 
Mercersburg  Theology  and  Philosophy  may  be  good  enough  for  those  who 
like  them,  but  I  deny  that  they  have  ever  been  recognized  as  the  doctrines 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  or  that  any  Committee  was  ever  authorized  to 
substitute  them  for  those  doctrines. 

No,  we  have  a  denominational  standard  of  faith  and  doctrine,  invested 
with  as  full  authority  now  as  ever.  That  standard,  under  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, is  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which  is  believed  to  contain  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  held  by  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
Dr.  Nevin  and  all  his  associates  are  bound  by  it,  as  really  and  entirely  as 
any  minister  or  member  of  the  Church.  Nay,  the  Church  herself  is 
bound  by  it,  and  by  her  own  organic  life  and  law,  cannot  essentially 
change  that  doctrine,  or  even  her  Order  of  worship,  without  forfeiting  her 
claim  to  the  property  she  now  holds.  It  will  not  avail,  as  the  civil 
statutes  in  such  cases  now  stand,  to  pretoid  to  adhere  outwardly  to  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  yet  really  teach  doctrines  opposed  to  the 
obvious  and  traditional  sense  of  that  standard.  A  professor,  or  minister 
of  our  Church,  may  not  teach  Unitarianism,  or  Puseyism,  or  any  other 
ism  essentially  and  materially  at  variance  with  our  standjrd,  and  yet 
shield  himself  beneath  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  so  escape  censure. 
Every  such  doctrinal  standard  has  a  definite  historical  sense,  a  sense  fixed 
by  traditional  authority,  and  by  that  sense  the  teachers  of  the  Church  are 
bound.  No  attempted  evasions  will  avail.  And  even  though  the  judicial 
authorties  of  the  Church  should  themselves  so  come  under  the  power  of 
the  leaders  of  innovations  as  to  change  doctrines  and  customs  to  suit  the 
views  of  those  leaders,  the  Church  should  remember  that  the  civil  law  will 
come  to  her  aid  against  any  such  ecclesiastical  usurpations,  and  shield 
her  against  being  wrested  from  her  true  foundations  by  the  power  of  a  revo- 
lutionary majority. 

Beyond  all  available  contradiction,  therefore,  we  have  a  fixed  standard 
of  doctrine,  the  true  import  of  which  can  be  definitely  ascertained.     And 


CHRISTOCENTRIG  THEOLOGY.  119 

thi^  Revised  Liturgy  must  be  tried  by  that  standard  before  it  can  receive 
valid  ecclesiastical  endorsement.  If  it  contains  doctrines  at  variance  with 
those  of  the  Church  it  must  be  rejected.  The  Church  even  is  not  at 
liberty  to  retain  a  name  which  stands  for  a  historical  character  and 
distinctive  doctrines,  and  yet,  fundamentilly  change  both.  We  cannot 
become  Baptists,  or  Episcopalians,  in  fact,  and  yet  claim  in  form,  to  be 
German  Reformed.  We  cannot  adopt  a  Liturgy  containing  Unitarian, 
Swedenborgian,  Puseyite,  or  Popish  doctrines,  and  yet  call  it  a  drermau 
Reformed  Liturgy.  In  regard  to  the  case  before  us,  therefore,  it  is  evident 
that  the  point  to  be  settled  is,  whether  this  new  "Order"  contains  doc- 
trines which  are  at  variance  with  those  of  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
If  it  is  admitted  that  it  does,  or  if  it  can  be  proven  that  it  docs,  that  must 
settle  the  point  of  its  rejection. 

All  this  seems  clear  enough.  It  is  equally  clear,  therefore,  that  any 
valid  doctrinal  vindication  of  the  Revised  Liturgy  should  aim  chiefly  at 
showing  that  its  reigning  doctrinal  spirit,  as  well  as  its  special  phraseology, 
was  in  full  essential  harmony  with  the  standard  faith  of  the  German  Re- 
formed Church.  And  I  feel  persuaded  that  the  general  e.-rpectation  of 
the  more  devoted  friends  of  the  new"  Order"  was,  that  Dr.  Nevin  would 
furnish  a  lucid,  elaborate  argument,  strongly  fortified  by  appeals  to  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  and  to  standard  doctrinal  authorities,  to  prove 
most  ineontrovertibly,  that  the  doctrinal  spirit,  and  particular  utterance  of 
his  Liturgy  was  in  complete  harmony  with  the  authorized  confession  of 
the  German  Reformed  Church.  IIow  great  must  have  been  the  disap- 
pointment at  finding  that  the  author  of  the  defence  scarcely  deigns  to 
make  any  appeal  of  this  sort.  He  seems  hardly  to  know  that  there  is 
such  a  book  as  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  or  that  we  have  any  certain 
evidence  of  what  its  authors  regarded  as  the  true  sense  of  its  language. 
In  1847,  Dr.  N.  could,  in  his  "History  and  Genius  of  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,"  write  in  language  of  high  laudation  of  the  superior  excellence 
of  that  standard  of  our  faith  under  the  word  of  God.  In  1851,  he  could 
furnish,  in  a  preface  to  Dr.  Williard's  Ursinus,  a  glowing  eulogy  upon  the 
chief  author  of  the  Catechism,  and  the  author  of  the  Commentary  on  the 
Catechism.  Speaking  of  the  value  of  the  Commentary,  he  says  in  that 
preface,  among  other  commendatory  things  :  "  No  other,  at  all  events,  can 
have  the  same  weight  as  an  exposition  of  its  true  meaning."  Why,  then, 
are  the  Catechism,  as  well  as  the  Commentary  on  it  by  Ursinus,  so  utterly 
ignored  ?  Was  Dr.  Nevin  so  fully  conscious  of  the  essential  incompati- 
bility of  his  Revised  Liturgy  Theology  with  the  Catechism  and  the  Com- 
mentary, that  he  felt  it  to  be  most  expedient  not  to  place  the  two  in  very 
close  comparison  ? 


120  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

What,  then,  is  this  theology  of  the  new  "Order,"  which  is  heralded  by 
its  advocates  as  a  sort  of  latest  revelation  dawning  upon  the  Church ;  as 
the  only  "live  theology"  of  the  present  day;  as  a  system  to  which  the  old 
theology  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  indeed  of  all  Churches,  should 
most  cheerfully  give  place  ?  Dr.  Nevin  declares  himself  so  confident  of 
its  superiority,  of  its  carrying  with  it  overwhelming  evidence  in  its  favor, 
that  he  is  sure  that  "  the  people  only  need  a  fair  opportunity  to  judge  its 
merits  for  themselves,"  to  be  induced  to  accept  it.  Let  us,  then,  look  in 
for  a  few  moments  upon  this  great  masterpiece  of  modern  genius. 

At  the  very  outset,  however,  of  this  inquiry,  some  perplexing  difficulties 
meet  us.  This  remarkable  theo-logy,  by  which  the  Revised  Liturgy  is 
said  to  be  animated,  is,  Jirst  of  all, presented  to  ris  only  in  detached puits, 
in  broken  sections.  It  claims,  indeed,  to  be  a  system,  and  a  very  tho- 
roughly organized  system  at  that.  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  it  has  never 
yet  assumed  an  organized  form.  How  is  this  ?  For  years  we  have  been 
told  that  Dr.  Nevin  has  had  a  manuscript  system  of  Moral  Philosophy,  and 
manuscript  Lectures  on  Theology  so  far  prepared,  that  with  a  little  labor 
they  might  be  ready  for  the  press.  Why  have  these  not  been  published 
long  ago?  I  contend  that  if  the  philosophy  and  theology  of  this  new 
school  arowhat  its  unreserved  disciples  declare  they  are  (and  no  men 
have  more  unblushingly  trumpeted  their  own  praises,  and  more  nauseatingly 
boasted  of  their  own  superiority  and  vast  erudition  than  the  leaders  of 
this  school  have  trumpeted  and  commended  theirs),  if  then  this  self-praise, 
however  disgusting,  is  yet  founded  upon  real  superior  merit,  I  contend  that 
Dr.  Nevin  should  long  ago  have  favored  the  Church  and  the  world  with  a 
full  and  complete  deliverance  of  his  doctrines.  If  the  Christocentric  theo- 
logy comprehends  the  panacea  for  all  the  theological  ills  which  now  afflict 
a  confessionally  distracted  Christendom  ;  if  it  holds  in  its  mighty  grasp  the 
key  which  opens  the  gates  of  a  theological  paradise  for  a  universal  Church, 
a  Holy  Catholic  Church,  now  torn  and  mangled  by  its  wretched  wanderings 
through  the  thorny  mazes  of  a  "  geocentric  "  theological  desert;  then  it  is  the 
extreme  of  cruelty  in  Dr.  Nevin  to  lock  up  this  potent  panacea  in  the  "  cham- 
bers of  his  own  imagery,"  and  to  keep  those  gates  bolted  against  a  poor,  strug- 
gling, fainting,  Protestant  Church  (for  be  it  noted,  it  is  only  Protestamism 
which  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  in  so  pitiable  a  plight).  Surely  there  is 
something  inexplicable  or  inexcusable  in  this  Mercersburg  theology  as 
headed  by  Dr.  Nevin,  claiming  to  be  the  only  live  theology,  the  only  pro- 
found theology,  the  only  genuine  orthodox  theology,  at  least  in  the  Protes- 
tant Church;  and  yet  this  wonderful  theology  is,  after  all,  not  a  theology 
at  all,  but  only  a  collection  of  theological  essays  on  a  few  vexed  questions, 
published  now  here,  now  there,  without  order,  without  connection,  and 
sometimes  with  but  little  coherency  1     How  will  the  great  vindicators  of 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  121 

the  system  reconcile  all  this  with  the  lofty  and  loud  pretensions  of  their 
system  ?  And  how  can  they  ask  the  world's  acceptance  of  a  system  not 
yet  systematized — of  an  organic  development  not  yet  organically  developed  ? 
New'ou  and  Kepler,  after  the  great  Italian  astronomer,  fully  and  unre- 
servedly proclaimed  their  discoveries.  Each  published  his  system  in  full. 
So  with  all  truly  great  men,  sure  of  their  theories.  Why  has  Dr.  Nevin 
been  so  reserved,  or  at  most  so  negative  in  the  communication  of  his  creed  ? 
Is  he  not  yet  quite  sure  of  it  ?  Has  he  not  yet  fully  recovered  his  equi- 
poise after  the  theological  dizziness  of  1850-55?  With  all  his  seeming 
intrepidity,  does  he  still  shrink  from  letting  the  Church  know  his  real 
views  upon  all  the  important  points  involved  in  a  true  theological  system? 
But  if  he  is,  what  right  has  he  to  ask  that  others  shall  implicitly  follow 
him  in  his  Japhetic  search  for  an  ecclesiastical  father  or  mother;  and 
aliove  all,  what  right  has  he  to  ask  a  whole  Church  to  commit  herself  to  his 
but  partially  developed  and  extremely  unsettled  Creed? 

This  is  not  the  first  time  these  questions  have  been  asked,  silently  or 
openly.  There  ai-e  many  brethren  in  the  Church  who,  from  a  natural  re- 
gard for  preceptors  and  their  Alma  Mater,  have  struggled  even  against  in- 
ward reluctance  to  adhere  to  Dr.  Nevin  and  what  seemed  his  theory.  At 
the  same  time,  however,  they  have  often  been  perplexed  by  this  very 
thing.  If  Mercersburg  theology  is  what  It  claims  to  be,  why  does  it 
not  publish  its  entire  system  ?  A  like  question  has  been  asked  by  good 
and  earnest  men  of  other  Churches,  and  in  Europe.  My  own  belief  has 
been,  for  seven  years  at  least, — that  is,  ever  since  I  saw  the  evidence  of 
a  determination  to  push  these  extreme  ritualistic  measures  through, — that 
Dr.  Nevin  is  afraid  to  publish  his  whole  system ;  either  because  he  would 
have  to  speak  very  doubtfully  or  ambiguously  upon  some  important  points, 
and  thus  lay  himself  open  to  ecclesiastical  censure — or  because  to  do  so 
would  involve  him  and  his  system  in  an  open  rupture  with  the  Church. 

Here,  then,  is  a  very  grave  difficuhy  in  the  way  of  any  thorough  attempt 
to  judge  of  the  merits  of  Dr.  Nevin 's  theology  as  it  is  said  to  rule  and  per- 
vade the  Liturgy.  We  have  no  certain  means  of  knowing  what  that 
theology  is.  Its  author  has,  for  reasons  best  known  to  himself,  if  those 
above  premised  are  not  the  correct  ones,  thus  far  refused  to  publish  it. 
Detached  essays,  or  disconnected  pronunciamentos  issued  on  the  field  of 
ecclesiastical  controversy, — and  especially  when  these  severally  do  not 
quite  agree  among  themselves, — give  but  poor  satisfaction.  One  is  con- 
stantly told  that  they  are  misunderstood,  or  misrepresented.  And  so  there 
is  nothing  definite  and  positive  to  lay  hold  of.  This  is  remarkably  the 
case  in  the  present  instance.  No  one,  I  am  sure,  could  tell  from  the  theo- 
logical pages  of  this  "Vindication,"  where  Dr.  Nevin  stands,  what  he  holds, 
ia  regard  to  some  of  the  fundamental  points  of  our  evangelical  faith.     For 


122  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

all  that  we  find  here,  Dr.  Ncvin  might  be  as  much  of  a  Papist  as  Bossuet, 
or  believe  in  purgatorial  salvation  as  fully  as  Cardinal  Wiseman.  In  vain 
do  you  look  for  any  thing  distinctively  evangelical  Protestant.  Until, 
therefore,  this  system  develops  itself  fully  and  consistently  in  all  its  parts, 
it  has  no  right  to  complain  of  misrepresentation.  Men  must  judge  of  the 
animal  by  the  bones  furnished,  if  the  entire  form  is  not  before  them.  The 
bones  of  this  Mercersburg  system  indicate  its  affinity  with  a  known,  well- 
known,  species  of  ecclesiasticism.  And  until  it  proves,  by  a  full  exhibition 
of  itself,  that  though  some  parts  of  the  structure  bear  such  a  resemblance, 
the  complete  organism  is  a  very  different  thing,  it  must  endure  the  name 
of  the  species  to  which  it  seems  to  be  most  nearly  related.  To  call  a  wolf 
a  sheep  does  not.  change  its  nature;  neither  is  every  turtle  a  dove. 

Great  as  this  difficulty  is,  however,  it  is  not  the  only  one  which  con- 
fronts us,  in  any  effort  to  ascertain  what  this  wonderful  theology  is,  which, 
as  the  soul  of  the  Revised  Liturgy,  makes  it  so  admirable  a  work.  Another 
serious  obstacle  in  our  way  is  the  great  diversity  of  sentiment  which  is 
found  between  the  different  expounders  of  this  new  system.  Dr.  Nevin 
says  this  is  a  new  thing  in  its  essential  features.  Dr.  Wolff  blandly  seeks 
to  allay  any  anxieties  or  dissatisfaction  which  this  confession  may  excite, 
and  softly  assures  the  people  that  it  is  not  so  new  after  all.  When  any 
one,  taking  the  system  at  its  own  word,  condemns  it  as  an  innovation  upon 
the  German  Reformed  Church,  the  editor  of  the  Messenger,  eager  to  seize 
every  opportunity  of  proving  the  sincerity  of  his  recent  conversion  to  the 
new  faith,  takes  up  the  condemnation  as  though  it  were  an  assavilt  and 
insult  upon  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  her  corporate  capacity. 
The  Rev.  Samuel  Miller,  of  Pottsville,  some  years  ago  a  minister  of  one 
of  the  German  Methodistic  sects,  but  now  a  minister  in  the  German  Re- 
formed Church,  and  an  ardent  admirer  of  Dr.  Nevin's  system,  is  prompted 
by  his  zeal  in  the  cause  to  write  a  book  on  "JMercersburg  and  Modern  The- 
ology Compared."  This  was  naturally  supposed  to  be  a  reliable  exposition 
of  the  sys'em.  and  somewhat  authoritative.  But  just  when  we  are  con- 
gratulating ourselves  on  having  at  last  gotten  hold  of  something  tangible, 
the  Mercershurg  liev-'ew,  (revived,)  edited  by  Dr.  Harbaugh,  frankly  tells 
us  that  this  affair  of  Mr.  Miller's  is  not  to  be  taken  at  all  as  a  fair  expo- 
nent of  Mercersburgism.  This  is  perplexing  indeed.  For  Calvinism  we 
have  Calvin,  and  for  Arminianism  we  have  Arminius.  But  how  si, all 
we  ascertain  certainly  and  beyond  a  doubt  what  this  Mercersburg  theology 
is? 

And  yet  this  half  developed  system — this  theology  which  is,  and  yet 
again  seems  not  to  be— which,  like  some  illegitimate  birth,  has  half  a  do- 
zen fathers,  all  claiming  to  be  one  and  the  same,  and  yet,  in  some  cases, 
denying  each  other's  true  paternity, — this  wonderful  prodigy  of  these  last 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  123 

days,  which  Mr.  Miller  of  Pottsville  attempts,  as  by  authority,  carefully  to 
delineate,  and  whose  delineation  the  Editor  of  the  Messeng'r  endorses, 
whilst  the  Editor  of  the  Revv-w,  and,  I  think,  one  of  the  special  contribu- 
tors to  the  Messenger,  delicately  disown  it, — this  organism,  a  few  only  of 
whose  bones  and  ligaments  have  been  exhibited  to  view,  and  a  little  only 
of  whose  life  has  been  revealed,  and  that  little  mostly  of  a  terribly  nega- 
tive and  rfe-structive  character, — this  piecemeal  thing  comes  up  intre- 
pidly and  asks  a  Church  to  adopt  it  soul  and  body,  with  all  its  known 
and  unknown  truths  or  errois,  with  all  its  obvious  and  hidden  conse- 
quences! This  system,  confessing  itself  an  innovation,  and  not  denying 
that  its  adoption  will  be  the  abrogation  of  the  legitimate  confessional  cha- 
racter of  the  Church,  has  the  oflFrontery  to  demand  ecclesiastical  sanction 
and  endorsement!  And  because  the  plea  is  presented  and  ur^'cd  by  the 
leader  or  leaders  of  a  school,  because  Dr.  Nevin  favors  and  defends  it, 
many  seem  ready  to  yield  unquestioningly  to  the  demand. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  true  cha- 
racter of  the  but  partially  developed  theology  must  be  m.ct,  and  we  must 
make  the  best  of  such  detached  and  disconnected  revelations  of  its  pro- 
found mysteries  as  have  thus  far  been  made.  Following  the  plan  of  the 
"Vindication,"  so  far  as  it  may  be  suitable  to  our  purpose,  we  shall  pay 
attention  first  to  what  the  author  calls  the  general  scheme  of  the  theology 
of  the  new  "  Order,"  and  then  to  the  doctrinal  specialties  of  the  book. 

Of  the  "  general  scheine"  we  cannot  allow  ourselves  in  this  place  to 
take  quite  as  "  broad  "  a  "  view  "  as  Dr.  Nevin  proposes  to  himself  And 
this  for  three  reasons:  (1  )  We  are  not  latitudinarians,  either  by  taste  or 
education.  ^Without  a  blush,  we  confess  ourselves  to  be  so  Churchly,  and 
so  much  under  the  control  of  the  "objective,"  that  we  find  no  pleasure  in 
any  theological  or  speculative  view ieyond  the  limits  of  the  evangelical 
tradition'-  of  our  fathers,  that  is,  therefore,  of  the  Word  of  God  itself,  from 
which  they  learned  their  faith.  (2.)  In  the  nest  place,  we  will  not  a'low 
ourselves  to  be  diverted  from  the  consideration  of  the  specially  obnoxious 
doctrines  of  the  ne^r  '■  Order."  (3.)  Finally,  it  will  require  but  little 
space  t)  show  that  in  those  general  points  in  which  the  new  theology  dif- 
fers from  the  evangelical  faith  of  our  Church,  it  is  either  of  very  doubtful 
value,  or  wholly  unworthy  of  credence. 

1.  It  will  not  fail  to  arrest  the  notice  of  the  critical  reader  of  the  "  Vin- 
dication," that  the  author  quietly  and  speciously  assumes  some  doctrines 
as  peculiar  to  his  system,  which  quite  as  rea  ly  belong  to  every  system  of 
evangelical  theology.  This  is  done  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  deceivng 
and  misleading  those  to  whom  he  appeals.  For  it  is  simply  impossible 
that,  with  all  his  extreme  prejudices  against  evangelical  Protestant  theo'o- 
gians  (and  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  one  whom  he  can  endure),  and 


124  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

Lis  aversion  to  tlic  commonly  clierished  faitli  of  evangelical  Christians,  he 
should  really  believe  that  they  deny  the  Lord  JesUs  Christ,  as  he  openly 
or  impliedly  charges  them  with  denying  Him.  But  if  the  iufatuated  au- 
thor hoped  ti.)  succeed  by  any  such  artifice,  he  presumed  far  too  much 
upon  the  ignorance  of  our  people.  They  are,  indeed,  for  the  most  part,  a 
single  minded,  unsophisticated  people.  Confiding,  deferential  to  men  in 
high  positions,  they  may  for  a  time  be  imposed  upon.  Those  whom  they 
trust  as  teachers  may  mislead  them  and  cause  them  to  err.  But  they  are 
not  ignorant.  Neither  are  they  indifferent  to  the  interests  of  truth  and 
the  Church.  And  in  this  case,  as  in  similar  attempts  made  in  other  forms 
by  servile  imitators  of  their  professor,  it  will  be  of  little  avail  to  repre- 
sent all-  who  do  not  endorse  Dr.  Nevia's  notions,  as  anti-Christian  he- 
retics. 

It  is,  then,  no  peculiarity  of  Nevinistic  theology,  that  Goil  in  Christ  is 
its  centre,  and  that  all  Christian  doctrines  find  their  root  in  Him — in  His 
person  and  in  His  life;  and  to  claim  it  as  such  is  simply  a  gross  defama- 
tion of  the  entire  theology  of  the  Evangelical  Church.  And  if  the  calumny 
came  from  a  more  creditable  and  authoritative  source,  it  mi"ht  deserve 
some  extended  refutation.  As  it  is,  nobody  believes  it,  excepting  those 
under  the  spell  of  the  master's  delusion,  and  it  is  harmless.  Only  as  be- 
traying the  insolent  anathematizing  spirit  of  the  fal.'^e  accuser  of  his  bre- 
thren, is  it  calculated  to  excite  our  deep  indignation.  Dr.  Nevin  should 
know  that  Christ  our  Lord,  incarnate  for  the  salvation  of  men,  was  6rmly 
held  and  faithfully  taught  in  the  German  Reformed  Church  (other 
branches  of  our  common  evangelical  Protestantism  may,  and  can,  defend 
themselves)  long  before  his  name  was  known  in  her  bordep.  No  one, 
therefore,  will  be  likely  to  be  deceived  by  the  unfair  but  artful  massing  of 
all  who  reject  his  anti-Reformed  and  false  conceits,  with  Ebionites,  Gnos- 
tics, Socinians,  Anabaptists,  and  metaphysical  Calvinists.*  There  would 
be  more  reasons  for  charging  his  theory  with  the  denial  of  the  first  article 
of  the  Creed,  the  doctrine  of  God  the  Father,  than  he  can  fairly  give  for 
accusing  his  opponents  with  a  denial  of  the  centrality  of  the  doctrine  con- 
cerning God  in  Christ.  And  it  is  noteworthy  that  whilst  Dr.  Nevin  makes 
these  bold  assertions,  he  does  not  in  a  single  case  attempt  to  prove  them. 
Here,  again,  he  expects  his  mere  domineering  declaration  to  be  accepted 
without  a  challenge.  Why  did  he  not  furnish  at  least  one  illustration  in 
proof  of  the  accusation?     The  reason  is  obvious.     He  could  not.     When 


*  It  may  be  noted  here,  as  well  as  any  where  else,  that  so  far  as  Calvin  suits  Dr.  Nevin, 
or  seems  to  suit  him,  he  can  boldly  cite  him  as  authority  for  the  new  doctrine.  But  true, 
legitimate  Calvinism,  the  spirit  of  which  pervades  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  expounded 
by  Ursinus,  Dr.  Nevin  most  cordially  hates.  I  may  add  that  Calvinism  is  the  antipode 
of  Puscyism  and  Popery. 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  125 

those  who  differ  from  this  new  theology  charge  it  with  error,  they  support 
their  charge  by  evidence  derived  from  the  writings  of  its  vindicators.  Dr. 
Nevin  must  do  the  same  before  he  can  convict  the  objects  of  his  bitter 
animosity  of  the  false  doctrines  he  says  they  hold. 

Much,  therefore,  of  all  he  so  vauntingly  sets  forth  on  many  of  the  pages 
of  this  part  of  his  tract,  as  though  the  credit  of  giving  prominence  to  those 
Christological  truths  in  these  last  days,  were  due  to  him,  really  amounts 
to  nothing  for  his  vindication.  Our  Church  believed  in  all  that  is  not 
strictly  peculiar  to  his  system,  including  the  "objective  and  historical"  in 
the  Christocentric  scheme,  and  even  including  the  Creed  long  before  Dr. 
Nevin  was  born,  and  before  he  favored  the  Church  by  subscribing  to  the 
Professor's  oath  contained  in  Art.  19  of  our  Church  Constitution.  The 
author  of  the  "Vindication,"  therefore,  has  simply  made  his  effort  ridicu- 
lous by  assuming  the  contrary,  and  indulging  in  such  sweeping  charges  of 
gross  heresy  against  each  one  in  particular,  and  all  in  general,  who  refuse 
to  bow  to  his  Christocentric  dogma. 

He  occupies  his  imaginary  heliocentric  position,  like  some  theological 
autocrat,  and  dictates  doctrines  or  anathemas  to  all  the  world.  It  is  not 
simply  the  author  of  the  "  Criticism  on  the  Revised  Liturgy,"  nor  the 
"clique"  around  hkii ;  not  simply  the  'f  Professors  at  TitRn  "  (all  of  them 
his  former  pupils),  the  victims  of  "ultra-montane  jealoufy"  (sic),  and  the 
despised  "Cyphers"  from  North  Carolina,  that  become  obnoxious  to  his 
censure  He  pronounces  sentence  against  the  entire  Protestant  world,  at 
least  in  America,  and  regards  all  as  lying  in  the  bondage  and  night  of 
error,  who  do  not  view  things  as  he  views  them,  or  accept  of  hU  particular 
Creed.  '^  Whoever  refuses  to  come  and  stand  where  I  stand,"  he  seems 
•  to  cry,  "in  this  only  true  central  position,  must  see  things  in  a  false  light, 
and  be  involved  '  in  boundless  error  and  confusion.'" 

What  "boundless"  self-complacency!  Shall  it  be  most  derided  or  con- 
demiaed.  And  all  this  assumption,  too,  in  one  who  quite  forgot  some  most 
important  points  in  the  very  "novel"  astronomical  illustration  on  p.  56. 
One  is,  that  our  sun  is  not  the  centre  of  the  physical  universe,  and  so  Dr. 
Nevin's  conception  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  and  the  purpose  of  the  incar- 
nation, may  be  false.  Another  is,  the  practical  difficulty  for  an  inhabitant 
of  earth  o^  securing  a  position  in  the  sun.  But  a  third,  and  the  most  fatal 
defect  of  the  illustration  is,  that  while  it  professes  to  place  an  observer  in 
the  best  position  for  contemplating  things,  it  fails  to  provide  for  his  vision. 
A  blind  man  would  see  nothing,  though  he  stood  in  the  sun;  and  a  man 
with  eyes  would  not  see  things  aright  from  the  most  favorable  position,  9/ 
he  looked  at  them  through  a  telescope  with  cracked,  crooked,  or  colored 
lenses.  Dr.  Nevin  flatters  himself  that  he  at  least,  and  those  standing  at 
his  side,  are  in  the  only  right  position.     That  is  exceedingly  doubtful.' 


126  CnRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

But  that  he  and  they  are  viewing  them  throuiih  distorting  media,  is  too 
painfully  certain.  Let  them  look  after  their  glass,  as  well  as  their  posi- 
tion. Now,  they  think  they  see,  and  that  they  see  aright.  But  so  did 
some  whom  the  true  Son  of  Righteousness  pronounced  self-deceived  and 
blind,  notwithstanding  their  pretensions  to  clearer  religious  vision  than 
their  despised  neighbors  enjoyed.  (See  John  ix.  39-41). 

2.  Correctly  to  ascertain  the  cliaracferistic peculiarities  of  tliis  self-styled 
Christocentric  theology,  those  doctrines  and  sentiments  which  are  common 
to  genuine  evangelical  theology,  must  be  deducted  from  the  description  of 
it  given  by  its  discoverer.  Thus  we  must  take  from  it  the  Christological 
features,  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term.  It  must  be  stripped  of  much 
of  its  arrogant  usurpation  of  the  Greedy  as  its  own  exclusive  property.  Its 
boastful  assumption  of  being  entitled  to  the  sole  credit  of  ascribing  super- 
natural efficacy  to  the  means  of  grace,  the  Word,  the  Sacraments,  Prayer, 
must  be  considerably  softened. 

True  churcaliness,  or  faith  in  the  Church  as  a  truly  Divine  institution, 
or  even  an  organism,  a  body,  "the  body  of  Christ,"  in  the  true  Apostolic 
sense,  the  sense  always  held  by  the  lioJy  and  legitimate  Catholic  Church 
heresy,  must  be  deducted  from  the  Christocentric  scheme,  as  something 
peculiir  to  it.  And  so  of  all  other  articles  of  evangelical  faith,  which 
Dr.  Nevin,  iu  his  vague,  ''broad"  way  of  writing,  seems  to  claim  as  be- 
longing to  his  theology  in  an  exclusive  sense.  But  after  all  these  deduc- 
tions, what  is  left?  Enough,  alas,  to  furnish  occasion  for  regret  and 
alarm.  Enough,  also,  to  warn  the  Church  against  adopting  a  cultus 
which  is  now  openly  declared  to  be  built  on  this  false  basis,  and  to  be  per- 
vaded by  the  spirit  of  these  novelties. 

For  the  charge  that  our  prevalent  evangelical  theology,  and  especially  • 
that  of  the  Reformed  Church,  is  heretical  upon  the  doctrinal  points  above- 
named,  proceeds  wholly  from  the  fact  that  in  Dr.  Nevin's  scheme  those 
doctrines  are  invested  with  a  peculiar  phase,  stand  under  certain  signifi- 
cant modifications.  These  phases  or  modifications  constitute  their  party 
distinction.  How  far  they  involve  serious  departures  from  the  acknow- 
ledged and  stanJard  faith  of  the  R<formed  Church,  is  the  only  point 
which  concerns  us  now.  Their  abstract  merits  or  faults,  do  not  concern 
us  in  this  tract.  And  if  the  author  of  the  "  Vindication"  has  for  a  moment 
supposed  that  he  could  mislead  or  confuse  us  by  his  "broad"  sweep  amidst 
seemingly  vast,  profound,  or  lofty  theological  speculations,  so  that  in  this 
way  the  real  issue  might  be  lost  sight  of,  he  was  wholly  mistaken.  What- 
ever interest  the  opponents  of  his  ritualistic  and  dogmatical  innovations  mny 
find  in  ajrial  or  subterranean  excursions  of  this  kind,  or  whatever  aversion 
they  may  feel  to  the  bold  adventures  of  speculative  curiosity  into  fields  not 
open  by  Divine  revelation,  they  remember  that  the  important  question  now 


CHRISTOCENTRIC    THEOLOGY.  127 

demanding  adjustment,  is,  ■whether  the  doctrinal  basis  and  distinctive 
doctrinal  features  of  the  Revised  Liturgy  are  in  accordance  with  evange. 
lical  Keformed  standards  of  faith,  or  are  contrary  to  them.  We  believe 
that  what  Dr.  Nevin,  speaking  for  his  associates,  declares  to  be  the  doc- 
trinal basis  of  the  new  "Oi'der,"  as  well  as  the  peculiar  phase  of  the  spe- 
cial doctrine  named,  can  easily  be  shown  to  be  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
acknowledged  historical  faith  of  our  Church.  To  prove  this  will  require 
no  lengthened  or  labored  argument. 

Followi.:g  Dr.  Nevin's  own  order,  the  theology  of  the  Revised  Liturgy 
may  be  considered  1.  As  to  its  Christocentric  character  ;  2.  As  to  its  re- 
lation to  the  Creed;  and  3.  In  regard  to  its  objective  and  historical -^xetQn- 
sions. 

First  of  alJ,  then,  what  is  this  strange  theory  for  which  the  author 
could  i3nd  no  suitable  name  in  our  extensive  theological  vocabulary,  and 
which  is  presented  to  us  under  the  somewhat  mysterious  and  yet  assump- 
tive tide  of  Christocentric?  Its  distinctive  peculiarity  may  be  discovered 
in  the  almost  exclusive  prominence  which  it  gives  to  the  incarnation  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  "the  mysterious  constitution  of  His  blessed 
Person."  As  the  careful  author  of  the  "  Vindication  "  throws  out  his 
views  iu  the  form  of  questions,  rather  than  in  any  direct  statements,  we 
cannot  quote  his  sentiments  in  a  positive  form.  But  taking  the  sum  of  these 
questions  and  geueral  hints,  there  is  no  difficulty,  with  due  care,  in  getting 
at  the  doctrine.  It  is,  that  the  great  purpose  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son 
of  Grod,  was  to  furnish  a  substantial  basis  of  a  new  organic  oider  of  life; 
so  that  our  human  nature,  which  is  corrupt  and  depraved  by  virtue  of  its 
relation  to  the  first  Adam,  may  have  a  vivifying  portion  of  the  real  personal 
life  of  Christ  infused  into  it,  and  thus  be  regoneratec!,  justified  and  saved. 
Hence  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  becomes  as  actual  historical  a  basis  of  this 
literally  infused  divine  human  life,  as  Adam  was  the  basis  of  the  first  or 
Adamic  life  of  man.  In  the  doctrine  concerning  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ,  the  chief  thing,  the  only  really  essential  factor,  is  His  incarnation 
and  the  mysterious  constitution  of  His  person.  All  else  pertaining  to 
Him, — His  humiliation,  passion,  death,  burial,  is  but  incidental  and  ac- 
cessory. By  virtue  of  this  "mysterious  constitution  of  His  person," — oiot 
hy  virtue  of  His  atoning  passion  and  death,  He  penetrates  the  Church 
with  His  own  real,,  substantial  personal  life,  so  that  it  is  but  the  continual 
repioduction  and  perpetual  remanifestation  of  His  incarnation;  and  this, 
it  must  be  remembered,  not  in  a  dynamic  spiritual  way,  but  in  a  manner, 
which,  while  it  is  claimed  to  be  supernatural,  really  lies  wiihin  the  sphere 
of  the  natural  as  much  as  any  other  operation  of  nature.  Fur  accoiding 
to  the  Chri;?tocentric  theory  this  real,  substantial  personal  life  of  Christ, 
of  the  actual  literal  substance  of  His  glorified  nature,   is  as  reallt/  trans- 


128  CHEISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

mitted  through  Baptism,  consequently  by  the  physical,  or  at  most,  psy- 
chico-physical  act  of  the  minister  (for  the  theory  denies  that  the  absence 
of  intention  on  the  part  of  the  minister  would  render  the  sacrament  void), 
as  the  natural  seed  of  human  life  is  transmitted  in  human  generation. 
Hence  the  life  of  the  individual  Christian,  as  of  the  whole  body  of  Chris- 
tians, or  the  Church,  is  in  the  only  proper  sense,  according  to  this  theory, 
a  process  and  result  of  supernatural  generation  affected  by  such  diffusion 
or  conveyance  of  a  portion  of  the  actual,  literal  substance  of  the  glorified 
humanity  of  the  Lord  .Jesus  Christ  through  a  sacrament  administered  by 
a  human  agent  as  a  medium  of  such  convejanoe. 

Now,  as  said  above,  we  have  nothing  to  do  in  this  place  with  the  philo- 
sophical as  well  as  theological  absurdities  which  seem  to  us  to  be  mani- 
festly involved  in  ibis  speculation.  It  claims,  indeed,  to  rest  upon  a  pro- 
found system  of  theologiqal  psychology  of  which  Calvin  and  the  other 
Keformers  were  unhappily  ignorant.  How  utterly  groundless  all  such 
claims  are,  may  be  fully  shown  some  other  time,  and  in  some  other  form.* 
Meanwhile  it  will  suffice  to  say,  that  as  Dr.  Nevin  makes  no  appeal  to  any 
Protestant  evangelical  authorities  in  support  of  his  theory,  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  prove  that  none  such  could  be  found,  unless,  indeed,  R.  Wilber- 
force  and  his  peculiar  school  should  be  claimed.  (Those  who  have  oppor- 
tunity and  leisure  may  refer  to  Haf/enbach,  Hist,  of  Doctrines  I,  202-3; 
380-81;  II,  279-80,  454.  Ubrard,  K.  u.  Dogm.-Gesch.  I.  99-115; 
203-320;  II.  241  &c.;  III.  224  &c.  The  value  of  the  author's  appeal  to 
the  Apostle's  Creed  will  be  noticed  below. 

But  contrast  with  this  Christocentricity  the  true  Scriptural  Christology 
of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Ask  the  Church  as  testifying  through  it, 
what  is  the  chief  doctrine  concerning  the  Person  and  Work  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ?  •  Ask  her  why  He  became  incarnate ;  why  God  was  thus 
manifested  in  the  flesh?  And  at  once  you  are  told  that  the  incatnation 
was  in  order  to  something  else;  that  the  mysterious  theanthropic  constitu- 
tion of  His  wonderful  Person,  had  reference  not  to  any  such  speculative 
psychological  scheme  as  is  assumed  in  the  Christocentric  theory  of  Dr. 
Nevin  and  his  Liturgy,  but  to  quite  another  necessity.  What  this  is,  is 
affirmed  in  the  answers  to  the  12th,  14th,  15th,  16th,  17th,  and  18th 
questions.     Let  us  take  but  the  16th  and  17th: — 

"Why  must  He  be  very  man,  and  also  perfectly  righteous  ?    Because  the 

» Hardly,  however,  in  the  Mereersburtj  Review.  For  I  should  have  stated  before,  that 
a  request  made  for  the  privilege  of  inserting  the  Liturgical  and  Theological  portions  of 
this  reply  to  Dr.  N.  was  first  refused  on  the  ground  that  the  7?ei';cio  "could  not  be  allowed 
to  fight  itself;"  then  partly  granted,  but  under  editorial  conditions,  to  which  no  gentle- 
man could  submit.  But  yet  Dr.  N.  was  allowed  to  traduce  Brethren  in  the  part  of  his 
"  Vind."  published  in  the  Review.     So  much  for  Mercersburg  Theology  Liberty. 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  129 

Justice  of  God  recpiires  that  the  same  human  nature  which  hath  sinned, 
should  likewise  make  satisfaction  for  sin:  and  one  who  is  himself  a  sinner 
cannot  satisfy  for  others." 

"  Why  must  He  in  one  person  be  also  very  God  ?     That  He  might  by 
the  power  of  His  Godhead  sustain  in  His  human  nature  the  hurden  of 
God's  xoralli^  and  might  obtain  for  and  restore  unto  us  righteousness  and 
.      life." 

How  "  materially  and  essentially"  different  this  representation  of  the  pur- 
pose of  the  incarnation,  of  the  necessity  of  it,  of  the  end  to  be  accomplished  by 
it,  from  that  of  the  Christocentric  theory !  So  different  indeed  that  the 
two  conceptions  are  irreconcilable,  not  only  formally  but  materially;  not 
only  in  their  explicit  doctrines,  but  in  what  they  necessarily  involve.  It  is 
hardly  possible,  if  indeed  at  all  possible,  to  conceive  of  a  point  of  harmony 
between  the  two.  If  human  nature  is  redeemed  and  saved  from  its  fallen 
and  lost  condition,  not  by  the  atonement  of  Christ,  but  by  the  incarnation 
of  Christ. — if  the  former  was  simply  an  accessory  consequence  of  the  latter, 
merely  necessary  in  some  mysterious  way  to  render  it  perfect  and  com- 
plete (and  Dr.  N's.  disciples  are  prone  to  appeal  to  such  misapprehended 
passages  as  Heb.  ii.  10  :  "  Make  the  Captain  of  salvation  -perfect  through 
suffering")  then  men  are  declared  by  the  Christocentric  theory  to  be 
saved,  humanity  to  be  delivered  from  the  curse  and  power  of  depravity, 
and  to  be  restored  to  adoption  in  the  family  of  God,  in  a  very  different 
way  from  that  taught  in  our  standard,  and  proven  true  by  the  Word  of 
God.  For  according  to  the  evangelical  doctrine,  the  Son  of  God  assumed  our 
human  nature  (sin  excepted)  that  by  union  with  it  He  might  1,  enable 
it  to  endure  the  penalty  of  sin,  and  2,  give  infinite,  divine  value  to  the 
•  penalty  thus  endured.  But  Dr.  Nevin  has  discovered,  or  revived,  and 
proclaims  a  very  different  doctrine.  And  now  he  asks  that  the  German 
Reformed  Church,  by  adopting  his  new  Liturgy,  shall  substitute  this  new, 
and  at  the  very  best  speculative  and  doubtful  notion,  for  her  old  Scriptural 
doctrine  concerning  the  true  purpose  and  end  of  the  incarnation  !  Will  she 
do  it?  Will  she  permit  herself  to  be  shaken  in  her  old  Apostolic  faith, 
by  the  hand  of  one  who  has  thus  ventured,  under  the  "irresistible  force" 
of  a  new  idea  in  doctrine,  as  he  was  under  the  power  of  a  similar  fatality 
in  regard  to  cultus,  to  disturb  the  "faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints?" 
Mark,  as  before  so  I  say  now,  that  I  do  not  hold  Dr.  Nevin  responsible 
for  doing  this  under  the  conviction  that  it  is  not  true  Scriptural  doctrine 
which  he  seeks  to  inculcate  and  scatter  abroad.  But  his  thinking  it  truth 
does  not  make  it  cease  to  be  error;  and  his  holding  the  commonly  received 
doctrine  for  error  does  not  make  it  cease  to  be  truth.  I  believe  that  the 
doctrine  of  our  Catechism  and  Church  is  "the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  and 
that  Dr.  Nevin  has  allowed  himself  to  be  betrayed  by  his  own  venturous 
9 


130  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

speculations,  and  especially  by  his  unhappily  cherished  dislike  of  evangeli- 
cal Protestant  theology,  into  a  very  pernicious,  though  possibly  not  fatal 
error.  This  error,  it  is  gratifying  to  know,  is  not  shared  by  all  who  are 
supposed  to  agree  with  ultra  Mercersburg  theology.  Thus  in  the  "Cate- 
chism for  Sunday-schools,  &c.,  by  Dr.  Schaff/'  in  answer  to  the  question, 
(p.  177)  "Why  did  the  eternal  Son  of  God  take  up  our  human  nature 
into  fellowship  with  His  divine  person?"  we  are  told:  "In  order  that  He 
might  live,  suffer,  die,  and  rise  again  for  us,  and  thus  accomplish  in  our 
nature  the  redemption  of  man." 

To  prove  that  this  has  ever  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
by  citations  from  theologians  of  acknowledged  authority,  would  require  us 
to  copy  scores  of  pages  from  the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  of  our 
Church,  as  well  as  from  numerous  historians  of  the  Reformation.  But  as 
Dr.  Neviu  does  not  at  all  pretend  that  he  is  teaching  Reformed  doctrine 
on  this  point,  evidence  in  refutation  of  his  views  from  Reformed  authori- 
ties would  be  superfluous. 

In  the  second  place,  then,  the  claim  which  this  Cliristocentric  theory 
lays  to  Jjeivg  foxinded  on  the  '■'■Apostles'  Creed"  demands  consideration. 
Were  one  utterly  unacquainted  with  the  Christian  Church,  to  read  the 
"  Vindication,"  or  to  hear  Dr.  Kevin's  School  speak  as  it  does  about  the 
"  Creed,"  he  would  certainly  be  led  to  believe  that  it  was  some  precious 
treasure  hidden  or  despised  for  ages,  now  first  brought  to  light  again  and 
raised  to  its  true  position  of  honor  and  esteem  in  the  Church.  To  those 
who  know  the  facts  in  the  case,  all  this  blustering  talk  must  seem  not  only 
ridiculous,  but  false.  If  thousands  of  us  had  not  been  taught  the  Creed 
in  our  childhood — if  we  had  not  heard  it  repeated  time  and  again  in  our 
Church — if  we  had  not  known  it  to  be  taught  faithfully  and  earnestly  by 
hundreds  of  pastors  in  our  Church,  whom  Dr.  Nevin  can  unhesitatingly 
traduce,  but  whose  hard  labors  he  has  never  laid  hold  of, — we  might  possibly 
be  deceived  by  such  sweeping  assertions  as  he  makes.  So  far  as  these 
assertions  are  grossly  detractive  of  other  Churches,  as  the  Lutheran  and 
Episcopal,  I  leave  them  to  answer  for  themselves. 

But  where  so  much  is  professedly  made  of  the  Creed,  we  naturally  and 
justly  expect  that  it  will  not  be  arbitrarily  interpreted,  according  to  pri- 
vate judgment  or  the  fancies  of  some  favorite  theory.  How  great  our 
disappointment,  therefore,  to  find  that  instead  of  going  to  the  Creed  for  a 
faith,  this  Christocentric  theology  goes  to  it  icith  a  faith.  For  nothing  is 
more  painfully  manifest  in  all  the  appeals  made  to  the  Creed  by  Dr.  Neviu 
and  his  School,  that  their  partiality  to  it  is  mainly  to  be  attributed  to  the 
fact  that  its  articles  are  sufficiently  general  to  allow  of  such  a  construction 
as  any  speculative  theologian  may  put  upon  them.  In  this  case  a  theory 
of  Christianity  and  the  Church  is  adopted — adopted  on  what  are  claimed 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  131 

to  be  profound  philosophical  grounds.  This  theory  seeks  in  vain  for  justi- 
fication in  the  current  evangelical  faith  or  theology ;  still  less  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. But  there  is  the  Creed!  Is  it  not  a  remarkable  coincidence,  that 
its  articles  indicate  that  very  system  of  organic  development  which  Dr. 
Nevin  and  his  School  adopt  ?  See  the  beautiful  generic  development ! 
First  Christ  (so  Dr.  Nevin  says — and  I  am  not  responsible  for  his  asser- 
tions) j  then  the  Holy  Spirit;  then  the  Church,  the  continuous  incarna- 
tion, &c.  True,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  whilst  greatly  to  be  honored 
for  honoring  the  Creed  (though  it  does  not  take  it  alone,  as  Dr.  Nevin 
says),  gives  no  intimation  of  any  such  organic  structure.  But  then  the 
authors  of  the  Catechism  had  not  sat  at  Dr.  Nevin's  feet !  And  are  we 
to  interpret  the  Creed  according  to  the  Catechism,  or  not  rather  the  Cate- 
cJiism  accordinrj  to  the  Creed  ?  Do  we  not  read  such  nonsense  in  Dr.  Ne- 
vin's "Vindication" — and  did  he  not  give  utterance  to  it  at  Dayton  ?  And 
have  not  some  incautious  disciples,  too  heedlessly  following  their  vaulting 
teacher,  run  into  the  same  ditch  ? 

Let  me  say  to  Dr.  Nevin,  that,  simple-minded  as  we  native  German  Re- 
formed people  are,  we  are  not  so  dull  as  to  be  deceived  by  such  gossamer 
sophistry  as  this.  "We  understand  very  well  that  the  choice  he  presents 
layS;  not  as  he  ivoidd  put  it,  between  the  Creed  of  the  ancient  Church,  or  no 
Greed,  hut  between  Dr.  Nevin^s  Apostles'  Creed,  or  that  Si/mbol  as  our 
fathers  understood  it,  in  all^essential points.  This  is  the  true  tssue,  and  no 
confusion  which  the  author  of  the  "  Vindication "  attempts  to  produce, 
shall  hide  it  from  our  view. 

According  to  thfe  system,  then,  the  Creed,  not  as  interpreted  by  the 
Evangelical  Church,  nor  even  as  it  may  be  Scripturally  explained,  but  the 
Creed  as  it  is  to  be  explained  according  to  itself,  or  its  own  inner  structure 
must  be  our  rule  of  faith,  and  is  the  ruling  spirit  of  the  new  '^  Order." 
And  yet  this  Creed  did  not  complete  this  organic  structure  until  more 
thany?ye  hunched  years  after  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  Note  the  following 
significant  facts  in  regard  to  the  several  Articles : 

Art.  I.  The_ phrase  ^^ maker  of  heaven  and  earth,"  was  introduced  no- 
body knows  when,  but  as  far  as  is  known,  not  before  the  seventh  or  eighth 
century. 

Art  III.  "What  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Grhost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary?-"  This  did  not  receive  its  present  form  until  after  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  A.  D.  381. 

Art.  IV.  Underwent  great  changes  in  the  course  of  ages,  and  especially 
by  the  very  late  addition  of  the  clause :  "i/e  descended  into  hell."  Pear- 
son, to  whose  work  on  the  Creed  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  all  these  facts, 
says  of  this  part  of  Art.  IV.:  "It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  the  Article  of 
the  descent  into  hell,  was  not  in  the  Roman  or  any  of  the  Oriental  Creeds." 


132  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

The  earliest  date  to  which  its  use  can  be  traced,  is  about  four  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  and  then  in  but  a  single  Church,  and  not  with  any  ge- 
neral acknowledgment. 

Art.  VI.  This  Article  at  first  read :  "  He  ascended  into  heaven  and  sit- 
teth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father."  It  did  not,  probably,  receive  its 
present  form  until  some  time  during  the  5th  century  or  later. 

Art.  IX.  This  Article,  so  important  to  the  Christocentric  theory,  both 
as  to  its  form  and  position,  has  been  unsettled  in  both  respects.  As  to  its 
form,  it  received  much  addition  in  the  course  of  time,  the  latter  part, 
"■  Communion  of  Saints,"  being  icholly  added,  and  the  former  part  being 
augmented.  For  the  article  originally  stood  simply:  "/  helieve  the  holy 
Church"  the  word  '•'•  Catliolic"  not  having  been  added  until  the  foufthor 
fifth  Century. 

But  what  is  still  more  noteworthy,  the  Article  instead  of  holding  its 
present  place,  immediately  after  those  concerning  Jesus  Christ  and  that  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  often  placed  last  in  the  Creed. 

Into  what  confusion  this  fact  throws  the  theory  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  his 
too  docile  disciples  !  How  suddenly  a  house,  however  captivating  in  its 
outward  splendor,  but  built  on  sandy  assumptions^  may  be  swept  away  by 
the  flood  of  a  few  simple,  undeniable  facts. 

Of  the  other  clause  in  this  Article,  Pearson  says:  '•'•It  heareth  a  some- 
thing later  date  than  any  of  the  rest."  It  was  "  not  in  the  Oriental  or 
Roman  Creed,  nor  in  the  African  Creed  expounded  by  St.  Augustine," 
and  so  Pearson  goes  on  enumerating  where  it  was  not  to  be  found,  until 
we  are  lost  amidst  the  deepening  gloom  of  successive  centuries. 

Art.  X.  Concerning  the  "forgiveness  of  sins,"  appears  to  have  been 
always  contained  in  the  Creed,  but  as  is  implied  in  what  was  said  above, 
it  often  preceded  the  Article  concerning  the  Church,  and  was  not  fixed 
relatively  in  its  •present  place  .^until  after  the  full  development  of  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy  and  sacerdotalism  and  ritualism. 

Such  is  the  foundation  upon  which  the  Christocentric  ritualism  is  based ! 
Not  the  Creed,  remember;  our  Church  has  always  held  to  the  Creed;  but 
that  Greed  interpreted  rigorously^  not  by  the  light  of  the  unchangeable 
"Word  of  God,  which  abideth  forever,"  but  by  the  law  of  its  own  inner 
organism.  What  organism  ?  That  which  it  acquired  or  developed  during 
the  fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  eighth  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles  !  And  yet  this  same  Dr.  Nevin  told  us  a  few  years  ago 
that  the  roots  of  all  the  abominations  of  Rome  could  be  traced  to  the  ear- 
■liest  of  these  centuries'! 

i 

Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  evangelical  truth,  this  4th  and  5th  century 
creed  theory  is  not  even  specious  enough  to  deceive  the  considerate  mind. 
It  is  too  obvious  to  escape  detection,  that  Dr.  Nevin,  quite  unconsciously, 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  133 

no  doubt,  is  laboring  under  the  delusion  of  his  own  fancy.  Bewitched  by 
his  own  seemingly  profound  philosophical  scheme  of  faith,  he  has  snatched 
at  some  imaginary  analogy  to  it,  or  confirmation  of  it  in  the  structure  of 
the  Creed.  And  the  system  seems  so  infatuated  with  its  own  conceit,  that 
it  really  thinks  it  can  carry  a  Church  which  for  three  centuries  has  held 
another  faith,  with  it,  though  that  faith  rests  "  not  in  the  wisdom  of  man, 
but  in  the  power  of  God." 

Here  then  we  have  a  system  whose  advocates  have  been  most  loud  in 
crying  down  private  judgment,  based  in  fact  upon  the  exercise  of  private 
judgment  in  the  most  arbitrary  way.  A  whole  Church  says — the  Creed 
must  be  interpreted  according  to  the  analogy  of  faith  in  the  Word  of  God. 
Dr.  Nevin  says:  away  with  your  stupid  nonsense.  Will  you  allow  a 
modern  Confessionalism  to  rule  out  the  sense  of  the  older  Confessionalism? 
etc.  (Vind.  p.  75,  etc.).  Does  the  author  of  this  sophistry  suppose  we  are 
all  silly  children  or  fools,  to  be  misled  by  such  a  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion ? 

The  point  is  not — shall  the  Confessionalism  of  the  5th  Century  be 
ruled  by  that  of  the  16th?  And  I  cannot  but  think  that  he  knows  it  is 
not.  The  point  is,  shall  we  be  ruled  by  an  arbitrary  sense  of  the  5th 
Century  Creed,  put  into  it  by  Dr.  Nevin,  or  shall  ice  be  ruled  hy  the  Holy 
Scriptures?  Our  fathers  said:  By  the  Scriptures.  Shall  Dr.  Nevin  be 
allowed  to  persuade  their  sons  to  deny  their  faith  ?  The  controversy  is  not 
between  us  who  are  opposing  these  encroachments,  and  those  who  ax'e 
making  them,  but  between  these,  as  lead  off  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church.  He  sets  up  his  own  private  sense  of  the  Creed  as 
its  only  true  sense;  he  says  it  must  be  its  sense,  and  denounces  as  Monta- 
nists,  Gnostics,  Muzzletonians,  all  who  dare  to  differ  from  him.  This  sense, 
however,  is  wholly  different  from  that  which  it  bears  in  our  Church  stand- 
ard, and  which  that  standard  supports  by  the  Word  of  God.  Thus  the 
conflict  by  Dr.  Nevin's  own  concession,  is  between  him  and  the  Church. 
We  stand  by  the  faith  of  the  Church.  Dr.  Nevin  thinks  us  very  self- 
willed,  very  stubborn, — compares  us  (in  imitation  of  his  pupil,  putting 
the  cart  before  the  horse,  or  whatever  the  proverb  is)  to  the  lonely  but 
headstrong  juryman,  etc.  We  confess  the  crime,  if  crime  it  be.  Dr.  Nevin 
may  remember  it  was  said  to  his  face  in  York,  that  he  and  his  whole  Mer- 
cersburg  system  were  less  than  nothing  to  us  (I  speak  for  my  brethren  as 
well  as  myself)  in  comparison  with  our  Church.  And  when  the  arrogance 
of  this  pretentious  thing  is  duly  considered,  one  may  well  indignantly  ask, 
who  is  Dr.  Nevin,  or  what  is  his  theory,  that  he  should  dare  to  ask  a 
Church  like  ours  to  modify  her  faith  in  accordance  with  his  views  ? 

He  says,  "twenty-five  years  ago  the  Creed  had  become  almost  a  dead 
letter  in  our  Reformed  Zion."     Never  was  an  author  more  egregiously 


134  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

mistaken  in  his  supposed  facts.  But  this  error  may  be  committed  like  some 
others,  because  Mercersburg  is  regarded  as  the  Church.  And  yet  he  flat- 
ters himself  beyond  all  measure  of  truth,  if  he  for  a  moment  imagines  that 
he  is  the  father  of  the  Creed  in  "our"  Reformed  Zion.  He  must  think 
that  we  native  members  of  the  Reformed  Church,  whose  fathers  and  an- 
cestors found  their  spiritual  home  in  her  fold,  are  callous  indeed,  if  he 
supposes  that  we  can  listen  in  quiet  patience  to  such  reproaches  upon  her 
earlier  ministry  and  membership.  Twenty-five  years  ago !  That  was  in 
1842;  and  that  would  be  just  a  year  or  two  after  Dr.  Nevin  became  a 
member  and  Professor  in  the  Church !  Ask  the  old  men  in  the  Church 
of  which  they  heard  first  and  oftenest — Dr.  Nevin  or  the  Creed. 

It  is  plain  enough  then,  what  all  this  ado  about  the  Creed  means.  Our 
Church  is  a  Church  of  the  Creed — has  always  been  so  in  a  true  Gospel 
sense.  But  Dr.  Nevin  would  take  advantage  of  this  attachment  to  an  an- 
cient and  venerable  symbol  of  the  Church,  and  use  it  as  a  means  of  intro- 
ducing a  new  and  strange  doctrine  among  us.  Mark  the  logic!  1.  Bring 
private  judgment  into  full  implicit  obedience  to  the  Church.  2.  Make  the 
existing  doctrines  of  the  Church  bend  to  the  organic  significance  of  the 
Creed.  3.  Determine  that  significance  by  the  genius  and  spirit  of  the 
fifth  century.  4.  Let  Dr.  Nevin  say  what  that  spirit  and  genius  are. 
With  such  a  scheme  no  wonder  that  Dr.  Nevin  is  greatly  off'ended  at  a 
habit  many  persons  have,  as  he  sai/s,  of  "following  their  own  nose."  He 
would  thibk  it  far  more  decorous  in  them  to  follow  his. 

But  following  neither  his  nor  ours,  we  prefer  the  experienced  guidance 
of  our  Church,  and  her  tried  and  true  teachers,  until  their  doctrines  are 
proven  erroneous,  by  far  better  evidence  than  is  furnished  by  any  arbi- 
trary, unnatural,  unphilosophical,  and  above  all,  unscriptural  interpretation 
of  the  Apostle's  Creed. 

As  a  third  characteristic  of  the  theology  which  underlies  the  new  "  Or- 
der," we  are  told  that  it  is  ^'objective  and  historical."  These  qualities  are 
assumed  to  be  peculiarly  distinctive  of  Dr.  Nevin's  system.  It  is  very 
easy,  as  we  have  often  seen,  for  the  advocates  of  the  innovations  to  arro- 
gate things  which  do  not  properly  belong  to  them,  and  then  press  their 
claims  to  consideration  by  derogating  from  others  in  a  most  fraudulent  way. 
I  claim  that  our  genuine  Reformed  Theology  is  truly  objective  and  histori- 
cal, and  that  those  characteristics  of  the  innovating  system  which  are  called 
objective  and  historical,  are  really  but  mechanical,  material,  or  magical. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  repeat  here  what  was  said  a  few  pages  back 
on  the  relation  of  the  objective  and  subjective.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  we  hold,  and  have  ever  held,  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  our 
Church  as  that  harmonizes  with  the  Word  of  God,  that  the  means  of 
grace  have  supernatural  virtue  and  come  to  men  invested  with  true  objec- 


CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY.  135 

tlve  power.  We  also  hold  that  these  means  have  served  to  maintaia  the 
true  historical  and  spiritual  organic  continuity  of  the  Church  from  age  to 
age,  and  will  do  so  to  the  end  of  time. 

But  what  is  the  nature  of  this  objective  and  historical  character?  And 
how  is  this  real  historical  organic  process  maintained?  Here  it  is  that 
Dr.  Nevin  departs  from  the  faith  of  evangelical  Protestantism;  and  here, 
therefore,  it  is  that  we  part  from  him. 

Taking  all  he  says,  and  all  that  has  at  different  times  been  said  by  others 
of  his  mind,  together,  the  '' objective  and  historical"  in  this  new  (I  mean 
of  course  new  for  the  Reformed  Church)  system  amounts  to  this:  Christi- 
anity, or  the  Church,  starting  substantially,  one  might  almost  say  materially, 
in  the  incarnation,  is  carried  forward,  developed,  applied  for  the  salvation 
of  men,  not  by  preaching  to  them  the  Gospel,  not  by  their  being  thus  cen- 
vinced  and  converted,  or  led  to  repent  and  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  by  having  a  vitalizing  portion  of  the  glorified  humanity  of 
Christ  (Christ  incarnate  glorified)  transmitted  to  them.  This  is  done  in 
the  first  place  through  Baptism,  which,  they  say  has  been  "  ordained  for 
the  communication  of  such  great  grace."  The  life  thus  begotten,  by  an 
actual  implanting  in  the  soul  of  a  literal  portion  of  the  glorified  humanity 
of  the  Lord,  is  nourished,  "objectively,"  is  kept  up  and  carried  on  "his- 
torically" by  the  conveyance  of  the  literal  life-force,  an  actua!  portion  of 
the  same  glorified  humanity  to  the  soul  in  which  it  already  exists,  through 
the  Lord's  Supper.  In  natural  human  life,  it  is  argued,  the  process  is 
thus  "objective,"  that  is  independent  of  any  conscious  personal  co-opera- 
tion of  the  subject.  Thus  the  life  of  the  first  Adam  is  propagated 
"objectively,"  by  an  objective  force,  power,  energy,  in  the  constitution  of 
the  race,  which  operates  through  instruments  indeed,  (parents)  but  yet  is  a 
law,  a  potency  above  those  instruments.  This  is  claimed  as  an  analogy  of 
what  holds  in  the  supernatural  sphere,  in  the  process  of  the  kingdom  of 
grace.  And  it  is  by  being  thus  objectively  carried  forward  that  it  can 
become  a  historical  or  organic  development. 

Now  we  do  not  deny  at  all,  but  readily  admit,  that  things  in  earth  are 
made  after  heavenly  patterns.  But  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the 
earth,  so  are  heavenly  things  far  exalted  in  their  mode  of  existence  and 
operation  above  all  terrestrial  copies  or  symbols.  And  Dr.  Nevin  errs 
egregiously  not  merely  in  assuming  that  his  theory  of  the  matter  is  the 
only  correct  one,  but  still  more,  we  think,  in  adopting  a  theory  which  is 
so  gross,  carnal,  material  in  its  idea  and  constituents.  Are  then  the  "ob- 
jective" powers  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  bound  down  to  such  material 
instrumentalities  as  these?  Is  the  Church  produced,  perpetuated  from  age 
to  age  by  such  communication  through  the  Sacraments  of  the  literal,  sub- 
stantial humanity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?     Is  the  life  of  the  Lord  Jesus 


136  CHRISTOCENTRIC   THEOLOGY. 

Christ  in  the  soul  only  a  blind  force,  an  unconscious  energy  operating  on 
the  mind  and  heart  of  the  subject,  in  a  manner  precisely  analogous  to  that 
in  which  the  law  of  our  physical  life  works  physically  without  any  consen- 
tient co-operation  or  consciousness  of  the  moral  subjects  in  whom  it  is 
lodged  ?  And  is  this  life  nourished  and  sustained  by  continually  repeated 
communications  in  the  same  form  and  of  the  same  kind;  just  as  physical 
life  is  sustained  by  a  process  of  unconscious  inhalation  and  exhalation,  re- 
spiration and  absorption,  digestion  and  circulation?  The  theory  we  are 
combatting  lays  claim,  it  is  true,  to  being  very  profound,  and  philosophi- 
cal. Indeed  I  am  persuaded  that  it  is  so  warmly  embraced  by  its  disci- 
ples, not  because  it  comes  with  any  true  Church  authority,  for  their  arbi- 
trary dealings  with  the  Creed  have  been  exposed,  but  because  it  seems  to 
them  so  deep  and  so  novel,  or  else  because  it  seems  to  justify  other  peculi- 
arities of  their  scheme.  But  is  it  really  profound  ?  Does  -it  not  rather 
seem,  in  the  view  in  which  it  has  now  been  presented,  to  be  dark  indeed, 
but  nat  deep;  to  be  speculative,  but  not  sustained  by  the  only  source  of 
true  knowledge  in  regard  to  divine  things. 

And  it  is  to  be  noted  here,  again,  that  no  appeal  is  made  either  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  any  evangelical  Confession,  in  proof  of  this  phase 
of  the  objective  and  historical.  Dr.  Nevin  finds  it  more  convenient  to 
fall  back  on  his  Creed — that  is,  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  he  sai/s  it  must 
be  interpreted.  Of  course,  it  is  easy  for  him  to  prove  any  thing,  in  this 
way,  to  his  own  mind.  Others,  however,  may  not  be  so  easily  con- 
vinced. 

How  strong  the  contrast  in  this  case,  also,  between  what  Dr.  Nevin  pro- 
nounces the  true  import  of  the  '^objective  and  the  historical,"  and  the 
conception  of  these  two  factors  or  qualities  of  true  theology  or  Christianity 
in  the  doctrinal  standard  of  our  Church  !  Here  we  have  both,  but  in  a 
really  higher  and  deeper,  because  more  Scriptural,  manner.  Here,  too,  we 
have  the  Church  begotten  and  perpetuated  by  the  communication  of  the 
life  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  our  life;  but  this  in  a  vastly  higher, 
deeper,  and  more  spiritual  sense  and  form.  It  is  not  a  power  transmitted 
to  the  believer  and  working  in  him  like  a  nixus,  an  infetinct,  wholly  apart 
from  his  own  consciousness  and  co-operation.  The  kingdom  of  grace  is 
designed  for  moral,  intelligent  beings,  and  all  its  means  and  provisions, 
are  strictly  adapted  to  such:  they  are  moral,  rational  means  as  really  as 
supernatural.  Dr.  Nevin  errs  when  he  says  that  in  its  application  the 
Divine  act  goes  before  the  Divine  Word.  It  was  not  so  with  the  first 
great  promise — with  the  entire  history  of  the  Incarnation,  unless  a  forced 
figurative  sense  is  put  upon  it.  It  is  not  so  in  any  normal  case  of  salvation 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Word  is  ever  first,  and  then  actual  sal- 
vation.    "  Zaccheus,  come  down"  precedes  the   "salvation  in  his  house." 


CHRISTOCENTRIC    THEOLOGY.  137 

Peter  preaches  before  the  three  thousand  are  brought  to  repentance  and  faith 
in  Christ.  The  "Word  is  the  seed"  of  regeneration,  i.  e.,  Christ  Jesus 
received  in  a  spiritual  way  through  a  spiritual  moral  medium.  The 
"Word"  is  made  the  "life"  of  Christ  to  the  soul  apprehending  Him 
through  it.  The  "Word"  is  ''■milk  for  babes,  and  meat  for  strong  men." 
Excepting  from  the  controverted  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John,  no  passages  can 
be  produced  which  teach  that  Christ  as  "  the  bread  of  life"  is  communi- 
cated primarily  and  chiefly  through  the  holy  Sacraments,  half  as  plain  and 
strong  as  those  which  declare  that  he  is  communicated  through  the  Gos- 
pel. Dr.  Nevin  appealed  to  the  Psalms  in  vindication  of  some  of  his  ritu- 
alistic views.  Suppose  we  should  appeal  to  the  same  inspired  authority 
for  proof  of  the  above  statement!  But  why  should  any  attempt  be  made 
to  cite  such  proofs?  The  Old  and  New  Testament  are  full  of  it.  We 
read  it  in  the  parable  of  the  sower  and  the  seed;  in  the  parable  of  the 
tares ;  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  in  the  avowed  purpose  of  all  the 
parables  and  teaching  of  the  Lord;  in  the  terms  of  the  great  Commission ; 
in  every  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  and  find  it  scattered  pro- 
fusely through  the  remaining  portions  of  the  New  Testament.  The  new 
life  in  Christ,  they  all  say,  is  begotten  by  the  Holy  Grhost  through  the 
Word,  proclaiming  and  conveying  Him  to  the  soul,  or  taking  and  grafting 
the  inmost  centre  of  man's  moral  spiritual  life  in  Jesus  Christ.  As  it  is, 
primarily,  man  the  living  soul  which  needs  redemption,  and  the  body 
participates  in  redemption  as  a  result  of  the  psychical  redemption,  the 
great  instrument  through  which  the  grace  is  received,  is  of  a  like  nature. 
Even  the  Holy  Sacraments  are  unmeaning  except  as  the  Word  reveals 
their  nature  and  design.  This,  therefore,  is  the  divinely  appointed  super- 
natural means  for  disseminating  Q'-  the  seed  is  the  Word  ")  the  vitalizing, 
saving  grace  which  is  alone  in  Jesus  Christ.  And  in  this  way,  also,  there 
is  secured  that  presence  of  an  "objective"  power  in  divine  form,  through 
which  the  organic  historical  growth  and  advancement  of  the  Christian 
Church,  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  \s  most  efiectively  carried  on. 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  "objective,  historical  qualities"  of  the  true 
Church,  which  underlies  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Dr.  Nevin,  after 
quoting  (p.  86)  what  he  calls  the  "soul-shaking!"  answer  concerning  the 
necessity  of  regeneration  in  order  to  deliverance  from  natural  depravity 
and  condemnation,  makes  this  astounding  remark  :  '■'■How  this  new  birth 
by  the  Spirit  is  brought  to  pass,  is  not  here  of  any  account."  Strange, 
indeed!  The  '■'■how"  is  the  very  point  at  issue  in  this  part  of  the  contro- 
versy. And  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  means  and  manner  in  which 
this  is  afiiected  are  mentioned,  only  a  few  questions  further  on,  it  is  very 
significant  that  those  questions  should  have  escaped  the  author's  atten- 
tion.    Thus  in  answer  to  question  20:  "Are  all  men  then  as  they  per- 


138  ■  DR.    NEVIN   ON   THE   OFFENSIVE. 

♦ 

ished  in  Adam,  saved  by  Christ?"  We  are  told:  "iVb,  only  tJwse  who  are 
ingrafted  into  Him,  and  receive  all  his  benefits  hy  a  true  faith."  And 
then  immediately  after  this  we  are  told  that  this  true  faith,  by  which  we 
are  "-ingrafted  into  Christ"  is  wrought  in  the  heart  "by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
through  the  Gospel."  Some  say,  however,  that  the  Gospel  here  means,  or 
at  least  includes  the  Sacrament.  That  it  does  not,  is  clearly  proven  by  the 
answer  to  question  65,  where  the  Grospel  and  the  Sacrament  are  placed 
in  antithesis  to  each  other;  and  where  the  phrase  "by  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel"  makes  it  still  clearer  that  the  Word  is  meant.  Indeed  the 
entire  system  set  forth  in  our  Catechism  is  based  on  this  principle.  The 
Catechism  was  taught  to  youth  in  the  abbreviated  form,  or  compendium. 
The  complete  Heidelberg  Catechism,  (Catechesis  Falatina,')  was  not  de- 
signed for  youth,  but  for  ripe  Christians.  (See  Ebrard,  K.  u.  Dogm. 
Gesch.  iii,  215.)  In  the  compend  the  first  question  asked  is:  "What  is 
necessary  for  man  to  know  in  order  to  be  saved  ?"  (See  Old  Palat.  Liturgy, 
translated,  Mercershurg  Review,  1850,  pp.  266-7).  But  it  ought  to  be 
superfluous  to  appeal  to  such  evidence.  And  yet,  in  sppport  of  this  new 
theology,  appeals  have  been  made  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  as  furnish- 
ing evidence,  that  it  assumed  a  theory  of  Christianity  favorable  to  that 
theology,  whilst  the  fact  just  stated  in  regard  to  the  compendium  always 
used  in  the  instruction  of  youth,  has  been  denied  or  ignored. 

By  these  three  characteristics,  therefore,  as  claimed  by  Dr.  Nevin  to  be 
distinctive  of  the  ritualistic  theology,  it  stands  condemned  before  the 
standard  of  evangelical  doctrines  in  the  German  Keformed  Church.  Our 
theology,  our  faith,  is  not  Christoeentric,  in  Dr.  Kevin's  sense ;  it  does 
not  spring  from  his  version  and  interpretation  of  the  Creed;  it  is  not 
"objective  and  historical"  in  his  view  of  those  qualities.  On  all  these 
important  and  fundamental  points  he  and  the  Church  differ  materially  and 
essentially.  And  they  differ  thus,  because  the  Church  derives  its  faith 
from  the  Word  of  God,  whilst  he  makes  fifth  century  theology  his  rule  of 
faith,  and  does  so  by  his  own  confession. 

On  liturgical  as  well  as  theological  grounds,  therefore,  we  must  refuse 
to  adopt  the  Revised  Liturgy  as  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church.  Unless  we 
are  willing  radically  and  fundamentally  to  change  our  faith,  as  well  as  our 
worship,  we  must  reject  the  ritualistic  Cultus  which  Dr.  Nevin  and  his 
associates  are  endeavoring  by  all  the  means  at  their  command  to  introduce 
into  the  German  Reformed  Church. 

DR.    NEVIN    ON    THE   OFFENSIVE. 

Under  a  seeming  sense  of  having  failed  in  his  sophistical  attempt  to 
exhibit  the  theology  of  the  new  order  in  an  acceptable  light,  and  so  as  to 
convince  his  impartial  readers,  the  author  of  the  "Vindication,"  by  a  sudden 


DR.  NEVIN   ON   THE   OFFENSIVE.  139 

manoeuvre,  adroitly  turns  from  a  defensive  position  to  one  of  offence. 
Weary  of  striving  to  parry  the  hard  blows  of  fact,  documentary  evidence, 
"stupid"  details,  he  concludes  to  try  an  assault.  With  some  of  the  hard 
names  he  applies  to  the  luckless  Brethren  who  differ  from  him,  most  per- 
sons were  probably  unacquainted.  Let  it  suffice  to  say,  that  they  are  terri- 
ble indeed.  It  is  bad  enough  to  be  a  Montanist,  and  a  G-nostic,  but  to  be 
called  a  Muggletonian,  and  that  by  so  august  a  judge  as  the  Rev.  Dr. 
John  W.  Nevin,  former  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  G-erman  Eeformed 
Church,  and  who  "stands  now  where  he  stood  then!" 

But  let  it  pass.  If  the  unhappy  author  of  those  overwhelming  epithets 
thought  he  could  harm  those  at  whom  he  threw,  on  whom  he  poured 
them,  by  such  stuff,  his  credulity  must  excite  compassion.  And  if  he 
supposed  for  a  moment,  that,  by  calling  tis  unlitiirgical^  who  used  Liturgi- 
cal forms  long  before  the  swathing  bands  of  ritualistic  drapery  were  wound 
around  his  loins;  if  he  thought  by  charging  us  with  denying  or  having 
no  actual  faith  in  the  Incarnation,  because  we  discard  his  half  ubiquita- 
rian  and  half-pantheistic  Christocentric  conceits ;  or  if  he  supposed  by 
accusing  us  of  denying  sacramental  grace,  because  we  reject  his  baptismal 
regeneration  and  sacrificial-altar  notions ;  I  say,  if  by  levelling  such  in- 
dictments at  us,  he  expected  to  disturb  our  peace,  destroy  our  name,  or  so 
excite  us  as  to  make  us  forget  his  errors  in  trying  to  defend  ourselves, 
never  wa^  a  man  more  mistaken.     The  artifice  does  not  succeed. 

There  is  but  one  point  in  this  portion  of  his  tract  which  I  will  notice. 
That  is  the  outrageous  rhisrepresentation  of  what  Professor  Rust  said  at 
Synod  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  infant  Baptism.  Dr.  Nevin  pro- 
nounces it  rank  Pelagianism.  He  knows  this  is  not  true.  He  knows  that 
Professor  Rust  did  not  deny  original  sin,  any  more  than  Ursinus  does 
when  he  says;  "Baptism  does  not  make  our  children  Christians, 
THEY  ARE  SUCH  BEFORE  BAPTISM."  Professor  Rust  was  opposing  the 
unscriptural  doctrine  of  that  Revised  Liturgy  which  Dr.  Nevin  does  not 
pretend  is  German  Reformed,  viz.,  that  the  children  of  believers  are  as 
"much  under  the  power  of  the  devil  as  the  children  of  tinbelievers. 

This  doctrine  stands  intimately  related  with  Romish  exorcism  in  Bap- 
tism ;  and  in  opposing  that  error  he  made  the  remarks  which  have  been  so 
grossly  perverted.  When  I  think  of  the  bad  design  of  this  perversion, 
and  consider  that  Dr.  Nevin  must  have  known  that  he  was  grossly  misre- 
presenting a  brother,  in  order  to  screen  himself  from  the  sharp  edge  of  the 
sword  of  truth,  I  feel  tempted  to  apply  to  him  two  Latin  words  which  he 
once  cast  at  one  who  differed  from  him,  and  against  whom  he  was  ashamed 
to  use  such  language  in  plain  English.  This  is  all  I  have  to  say  of  tho 
author's  offensive  strategy. 


140  SPECIAL    POINTS. — CONCLUSION. 

SPECIAL   POINTS. 

As  this  tract  has  already  extended  beyond  the  limits  originally  set  for 
it,  I  will  not  follow  Dr.  Nevin  in  what  he  says  with  regard  to  the  special 
points  of  objection  raised  against  the  Revised  Liturgy.  Indeed,  he  does 
not  attempt  at  all  to  deny  the  charge,  that  the  Revised  Liturgy  rests 
upon  a  theology  and  a  conception  of  the  Church,  which  make  the  ministry 
a  priesthood;  which  ties  the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  the  declaration  of  par- 
don by  the  minister;*  which  teaches  Baptismal  regeneration,  and  that  the 
Holy  Supper  is  a  kind  of  sacrifice  ofi'ered  on  a  propitiatory  altar  unto  the 
Lord.  (No  wonder,  now,  that  Dr.  Nevin  hates  the  80th  Question  of  our 
Catechism).  Should  it  be  deemed  necessary,  however,  these  points  may 
be  taken  up  at  some  future  time.  It  will  suffice,  meanwhile,  to  remind 
the  reader  that  they  are  all  involved  in  the  three  characteristics  of  the 
Christocentric  theology,  and  therefore  fall  with  them.  For  if  it  is 
virtually  admitted  that  the  Revised  Liturgy  is  open  to  the  serious  doctri- 
nal objections  which  were  urged  against  it  in  my  first  tract,  why  should  it 
be  necessary  to  repeat  the  proof  of  those  objections  here? 

CONCLUSION. 

1.  By  the  explicit  concessions,  then,  of  the  advocates  of  the  new  Order, 
as  well  as  by  what  is  manifestly  involved  in  that  work,  it  is  made  evident 
that  the  Church  is  called  upon  to  decide  the  following  vital  points: 

a.  Shall  we  maintain  our  distinctive  form  of  Liturgical  worship,  or  shall 
we  adopt  one  which  would  destroy  our  denominational  identity;  subject 
us  again  to  a  yoke  of  ritualism ,  essentially  like  that  cast  ofi"  by  our  Re- 
formed fathers;  barter  our  free  and  yet  duly  restrained  liturgical  character 
for  rigidly  imposed  ritualistic  formalities;  and  sunder  the  bonds  of  spiritual 
fellowship  with  our  nearest  ecclesiastical  kindred. 

h.  Shall  we  cleave  to  the  true  Apostolic  faith,  delivered  to  us  by  our 
fathers,  in  that  incomparable  standard,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, — to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  therein  set  forth, — 
to  the  doctrine  that  regeneration  is  wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through 
the  Word  of  the  Grospel, — to  the  doctrine   of    the    universal    common 


*  Lest  this  should  be  thought  an  extreme  statement,  I  will  give  the  doctrine  held  and 
taught  in  the  carefully  written  language  of  one  of  the  leading  abettors  of  the  innovation. 

"A  SINNER  MAY  BE  PENITENT  FOR  HIS  SINS,  BUT  UNTIL  HE  HAS  RECEIVED  BAPTISM  AS  God'S 
ACT    OP    REMISSION  TO  HIM,  HE    HAS    NO    TRUE    ASSURANCE    OF    REMISSION.      AND    AVHEN 

AFTER  BAPTISM  HE  SINS  THROUGH  INFIRMITY,  HE  CANNOT  BE  SURE  OP 
PARDON  TILL  HIS  ABSOLUTION  IS  SPOKEN,  SIGNED  AND  SEALED  BY 
CHRIST,  BY  T  HE  MEANS  OF  A  DIVINE  ACT  THROUGH  THE  CHURCH." 

Do  any  ask :  is  it  possible  that  this  is  the  doctrine  taught  those  who  are  being  trained 
for  the  ministry  in  the  Reformed  Church?  I  answer  that  it  is.  0  how  blessedly  diflFerent 
from  this  is  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  the  Answer  to  the  56th  Question  of  our  Catechism. 


CONCLUSION.  141 

priesthood  of  all  Christ's  people,  in  opposition  to  a  specific  sacerdotal  caste 
in  the  ministry, — to  the  doctrine  of  a  true  mystical  personal  union  of  the 
believer  with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  a  higher,  more  spiritual  and  po- 
tential form  than  the  semi- physical,  carnal-psychological  view  which 
Dr.  Nevin  teaches, — to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  as  signs  and 
seals  of  grace  already  possessed,  and  so  far  invested  with  sacramental 
grace,  in  opposition  to  that  theory  of  this  new  Order  which  makes  every 
thing  to  be  effected  by  the  sacrament  in  a  magical  or  mechanical  way, — to 
the  doctrine  that  the  penitent  believer  in  Jesus  may  feel  certainly  assured 
that  his  sins  are  pardoned  by  the  Lord,  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  now 
taught  by  the  advocates  of  the  new  Order  that  "  when  after  Baptism  he 
sins  through  infirmity,  he  can  not  be  sure  of  pardon  till  his  absolution  is 
fpolcen^  signed  and  sealed,  by  means  of  a  divine  act  through  the  Church," 
thus  making  repentance  or  penance  a  sacrament,  and  putting  the  peace  of 
the  contrite,  broken-hearted  sinner  in  the  power  of  the  priest. 

Shall  we  then  cleave  to  our  old  evangelical  faith  which  is  tried  and 
true,  or  shall  we  be  tempted  to  exchange  it  for  a  system  for  which  no  bet- 
ter ground  is  furnished  than  a  fanciful,  speculative  construction  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  Creed  somewhat  in  accordance  with  its  fifth  or  sixth  cen- 
tury sense  ? 

Only  let  the  Church  duly  realize  these  facts,  be  convinced  that  our  very 
life  as  a  Church,  in  all  the  important  characteristics  of  that  life,  is  at 
stake,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  this  extreme  ritualistic  innovation  will  be 
repelled. 

2.  This  controversy  has  been  forced  upon  the  Chiirch  by  those  who  are 
striving  to  introduce  the  innovations.  They  were  intrusted  with  an  im- 
portant work.  Great  liberty  was  granted  in  its  execution.  A  Liturgy 
prepared  under  the  liberal  instruction  given  would  have  done  its  authors 
honor,  and  have  served  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  Church.  But 
under  the  unhappy  influence  of  a  theory  of  worship  and  doctrine  acknowl- 
edged to  be  at  variance  with  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Church,  they 
allowed  themselves  to  transcend  or  falsely  construe  their  instructions.  The 
result  is  the  Revised  Liturgy,  or  new  "  Order  of  Worship."  This  they  are 
seeking  by  the  use  of  all  the  means  in  their  power  to  have  adopted  by  the 
Church.  Its  adoption,  as  clearly  shown,  would  involve  the  most  fatal  con- 
sequences. And  must  we  sit  still,  and  see  the  evil  progressing,  without 
interposing  our  protest,  without  raising  decided  opposition?  A  man  con- 
cludes to  renovate  his  house.  It  is  a  goodly  mansion,  reared  many  gene- 
rations back  by  his  honored  ancestors.  But  in  the  course  of  time  it  has 
grown  somewhat  gray  and  fiided,  and  needs  refreshing.  The  owner  em- 
ploys an  architect — tells  him  what  he  wishes,  but  especially  provides'  that 
the  general  plan  and  foundations  of  the  structure  be  not  disturbed.     The 


142  CONCLUSION. 

arcliitect  begins  his  work;  after  a  little,  proposes  some  modification  in  the 
plan  of  renovation,  but  agrees  that  if  they  do  not  suit,  they  need  not  be 
accepted.  The  work  goes  on  accordingly;  and,  after  some  time,  is  finished. 
It  is  found,  however,  that  the  modifications  have  not  been  fairly  followed ; 
that  the  alterations  are  of  the  most  radical  kind;  that  from  the  foundation 
up  the  whole  old  homestead  has  been  changed.  Many  of  the  household 
complain,  object,  and  beg  that  the  building  be  preserved  in  its  original 
plan.  Then  comes  the  conflict.  The  architect  raves  and  denounces- 
Had  he  not  told  them  what  he  was  going  to  do?  Had  they  not  known 
what  he  was  about?  And  now,  after  all  his  toil  and  trouble,  will  they 
dare  to  throw  the  work  on  his  hands  ? 

What  is  to  be  done?  Either  we  must  lose  our  home,  or  contend  for  its 
preservation.  Can  we,  should  we  be  reproached  for  engaging,  and  en- 
gaging earnestly  in  this  struggle  ?  We  believe  the  Church  had  no  idea  of 
the  extent  and  bearings  of  the  innovations  proposed,  nay  that  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  Church  even  now  has  no  clear  conception  of  their  na- 
ture, and  of  the  consequences  of  their  adoption.  And  shall  we  be  blamed 
for  speaking  out?  I  say  again,  what  I  may  have  in  substance  said  be- 
fore, that  for  my  part,  the  Church  of  my  fathers  as  they  gave  her  to  me; 
the  Church  in  which  under  Grod  I  was  born  and  brought  up,  is  more,  be- 
yond all  computation  more  to  me,  than  Dr.  Nevin  and  all  his  theories, 
highly  as  I  may  have  regarded  him  in  other  days.  And  I  can  say,  even 
now,  after  all  the  unjust  and  indecorous  calumny  with  which  he  has 
tried  to  overload  me,  that  I  have  no  personal  controversy  with  him,  ex- 
cepting as  he  is  using  his  influence  to  rob  me  and  my  brethren  of  my 
Church.  For  if  the  German  Reformed  Church  is  once  shaped  and  mo- 
delled after  the  pattern  of  this  new  "Order"  she  ceases  to  be  the  Grerman 
Reformed  Church,  however  tenaciously  she  may  still  cleave  to  the  name. 

The  fault  of  this  controversy,  therefore,  rests  not  upon  those  who  are 
contending  for  their  ecclesiastical  inheritance,  but  upon  those  who  are 
seeking  to  deprive  us  of  that  inheritance.  And  this  very  fact  gives  the 
former  an  immense  advantage  in  this  conflict.  They  are  struggling  to 
preserve  the  Church ;  the  others  are  seeking  to  subvert  her  practice  and 
her  principles. 

Many  sad  fruits  of  this  ritualistic  innovation  have  been  already  pro- 
duced. 

The  theory  and  principles  which  underlie  and  pervade  it,  have  caused 
many  of  our  ministers  to  leave  the  Church.  Most  of  these  have  gone 
either  to  the  Romish  Church  or  have  become  high-church  Episcopalians. 
It  is  of  no  avail  for  Drs.  Harbaugh  or  Nevin  to  try  to  turn  these  things  into 
ridicule.  Every  honest,  intelligent  advocate  of  the  theory  involved  in  the 
new  "  Order,"  will  confess  that  such  defections  are  a  legitimate  eff"ect  of 


CONCLUSION.  143 

the  theory.  Mr.  Stewart  of  Burkettsvill  e  may,  as  they  say,  be  of  small 
account.  They  did  not  say  so  years  ago.  And  it  is  simply  disingenuous 
and  deceitful  in  any  of  them  to  deny  that  the  natural  tendency  of  their 
scheme  is  in  the  same  direction  in  which  Mr.  Stewart  went.  Two  most 
estimable  brethren,  who,  I  supposed,  would  be  among  the  last  to  be  so  far 
carried  away  from  a  firm  evangelical  faith,  have  said  in  my  own  hearing : 
either  this  new  Order  system^  or  Rovie! 

Another,  who  was  once  sorely  entangled  by  the  theory  he  had  been 
taught  at  Mercersburg,  but  who  seems  to  have  escaped  the  meshes,  told 
me:  Dr.  Harbaugh  need  not  call  this  charge,  and  the  fears  felt  in  regard 
to  the  tendency  of  these  things  "humbug,"  "spooks  in  the  garret,"  etc.  It 
is  not  true.  There  is  more  reality  in  the  complaint  than  many  suppose. 
It  was  no  humbug  in  the  case  of  poor  Snively  ;  it  was  no  humbug  with  me 

in ;  it  is  even  now  no  humbug  with ,  and ,  and ,  whom 

I  know  to  be  unsettled  and  disturbed  in  their  minds  in  regard  to  some 
fundamental  points  of  Evangelical  Protestant  faith  and  practice. 

More  than  a  year  and  a  half  ago,  consequently  more  than  a  year  before 
Mr.  Stewart's  apostacy,  a  prominent  minister  of  our  Church  had  a  conver- 
sation with  him  on  the  whole  subject.  He  was  in  sore  difiiculties  on 
account  of  having  introduced  the  Liturgy  (Provisional  in  its  extreme 
forms),  and  expressed  great  regret  that  he  had  done  so,  or  allowed  him- 
self to  be  ensnared  by  the  system.  In  not  very  elegant  terms,  but  yet  in 
a  style  which  seems  to  be  authorized  by  his  former  Professor,  he  said : 
"  If  I  could  kick  the  miserable  thing  to  where  I  would  never  see  it  again, 
I  would  do  so." 

But  not  only  is  this  extreme  movement  an  occasion  of  harm  in  this  way. 
It  causes  dissensions  and  grief  in  congregations,  and  at  this  time  there  are 
scores  of  members  of  our  Church  who  are  sincerely  attached  to  her,  who 
are  driven  for  the  time  to  the  shelter  of  other  Churches  by  the  ofFensive- 
ness  of  these  ritualistic  measures,  forced  upon  the  congregations  without 
their  consent.  More  are,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  enduring  with  silent  grief 
these  mournful  departures  from  the  mode  in  which  our  fathers  worshipped 
God. 

Are  we  prepared,  then,  as  a  Church,  to  endure  these  unavoidable  results  ? 
I  know  that  all  the  defections  are  not  in  one  direction.  The  new  measures 
are  a  wedge  which  splits  in  many  pieces,  and  cause  the  parts  thus  sun- 
dered to  fly  indiscriminately  on  every  side.  And  the  worst  has  not  yet 
come,  if  the  innovations  are  allowed  further  sway. 

If,  then.  Dr.  Nevin  and  his  chief  disciples,  think  they  have  a  new  revela- 
tion,'have  discovered  a  faith  and  cultus  better  than  that  of  our  fathers,  let 
them  go  like  upright,  brave  men,  and  build  a  house  for  themselves  on  that 
basis.     Why  seek  so  to  remodel  an  existing  Church  so  as  to  make  a  wholly 


144  CONCLUSION. 

new  tiling  of  her.  When  John  Winebrenner  supposed  he  found  a  more 
excellent  way  than  that  of  our  fathers,  he  left  us,  and  started  a  sect  of  his 
own.  We  condemn  his  schismatic  notions ;  but  if  he  would  not  give  them 
up,  it  certainly  was  commendable  in  him  to  try  to  carry  them  out  in  his 
own  way.  Why,  then,  if  this  theory  has  a  new  creed,  does  it  not  venture 
boldly  forth  with  its  creed  as  a  basis?  Who  knows  but  it  might  become 
the  honored  foundation  of  that  great  Church  of  the  future  in  which  all 
the  "  disjecta  membra  "  of  both  Protestantism  and  Popery  should  find  their 
unity  and  strength.  Why  should  it  seek  to  make  a  new  sect  of  an  old 
Church,  and  under  cover  of  an  ancient,  honored  name,  cover  its  revolu- 
tionary character,  and  strive  to  accomplish  its  really  schismatic  scheme  ? 

4.  As  we  love  the  Church  of  our  Fathers,  therefore,  and  desire  to  have 
her  true  Apostolic  faith  and  practice  handed  down  to  her  posterity,  let  us 
stand  up  firmly  and  unfalteringly  against  these  ritualistic  innovations.  We 
are  not  the  only  Church  disturbed  by  this  evil  spirit.  On  every  side  of 
us  we  hear  the  clangor  of  a  similar  conflict.  To  brethren  of  other  evan- 
gelical denominations  we  owe  it  to  be  strong  and  unyielding  in  this  con- 
test. The  oldest  daughter  of  the  Reformed  family  must  not  be  the  first 
to  surrender  her  virtue  to  the  enticements  of  this  old  seducer.  Seeing 
how  manfully  the  true-hearted  portion  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  with  the 
learned,  undaunted,  venerable  Bishop  Mcllvaine  at  their  head,  are  strug- 
gling against  the  encroachments  of  a  similar  evil — and  how,  in  other 
branches  of  the  true  Protestant  family,  they  are  fighting  manfully  for  the 
faith  of  their  ancestors, — let  us  give  proof  both  of  our  ability  to  distinguish 
the  merits  of  truth  from  the  meretricious  attractions  of  error,  and  of  our 
being  worthy  of  the  inheritance  of  truth  bequeathed  to  us,  by  cleaving  to 
the  Church  as  our  fathers  gave  it  to  us. 

And"  why  should  we  not  ?  The  friends  of  that  Church  are  the  friends 
of  genuine  Apostolic  truth  and  worship.  But  who  are  they  that  look  with 
approbation  upon  Dr.  Nevin's  unhappy  scheme?  The  Presbyterian 
Church,  of  whose  very  close  affinity  with  ours  he  spoke  so  warmly  in  his 
inaugural  address  at  Mercersburg,  disowns  him.  The  Dutch  Church, 
of  whose  tender  consanguinity  with  ours,  he  descanted  so  lovingly 
at  one  of  the  Triennial  Conventions,  discards  his  vain  anti-Protestant 
conceits.  Even  the  great  theologian  of  Germany,  Dr.  Dorner,  writes  re- 
gretfully of  this  Mercersburg  defection  from  the  genuine  evangelical  ftiith. 
And  Dr.  Nevin  himself,  with  a  dark,  gloomy  consciousness  of  having 
proven  recreant  to  the  faith  of  his  fathers,  and  of  all  his  former  brethren, 
seeks  comfort  in  holding  them  up  to  derision  and  contempt.  He  has  a 
harsh  anathema  for  every  one  of  them — and,  in  turn,  is  sorely  reproached 
by  all  hut  one  !  And  shall  we  suff"er  his  scheme  so  far  to  prevail  that  our 
beloved  Church  shall  become  as  marked  an  Ishmaelite  amona;  other  evan- 


CONCLUSION.  145 

gelical  Churches,  as   he   has  made  himself,  and  is  making  inconsiderate 
followers,  a^ong  evangelical  theologians  ? 

That  Dr.  Neviu  will  ever  return  to  the  evangelical  ground  he  has  for- 
saken, I  think  there  is  no  room  to  hope.  But  why  should  he  be  allowed 
to  draw  a  whole  Church  after  him  ? 

We  do  not  oppose  progress  and  development  in  our  Church  life.  That 
progress,  however,  should  not  be  revolutionary,  destructive?  There  are 
many  reasons  why,  for  the  sake  of  evangelical  Christianity,  we  should 
earnestly  strive  to  maintain  and  improve  our  distinctive  denominational 
life.  But  this  may  and  should  be  done  in  harmony  with  our  true  genius 
and  character,  and  not  in  violent  subversion  of  them. 

I  close  with  words  which  expressed  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Nevin  as  he 
once  thought  and  felt,  and  which,  though  he  would  now  discard  them,  ex- 
press as  important  a  truth  as  when  they  were  first  uttered : — 

"7/^  the  original  distinctive  life  of  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation  he 
not  the  object  to  he  reached  after  in  the  efforts  that  are  made  to  huild  up 
the  interests  of  German  Christianity  in  this  country^  it  ivere  hetter  to  say 
so  openly  and  plainly.  *  *  *  W/iy  keep  ^ij)  the  loalls  of  denominational 
partition  in  such  a  case,  with  no  distinctioe  sp)iritual  heing  to  uphold  or 
protect?" 

'•'•Let  this  system  prevail  and  ride  with  permanent  sway,  and  the  result  of 
the  religious  movement  which  is  now  in  progress  toill  he  something  widely 
different  from  what  it  woidd  have  heen  under  other  auspices.  The  old  re- 
gular organizations,  if  they  continue  to  exist  at  all,  will  not  he  the  same 
Churches.  Their  entire  complexion  and  history,  in  time  to  come,  will  he 
shaped  hy  the  new  course  of  things."     (Anxious  Bench,  pp.  10,  19.) 

Cansiderations  like  these  moved  us  to  oppose  what  were  called  Metho- 
distic  New  Measures  in  1843  to  1847.  Those  same  considerations  constrain 
us  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  the  Uigh  Church  ritualistic  new  measures 
now. 

For  three  centuries  the  Reformed  Church  has,  with  slight  exceptions, 
maintained  her  distinctive  life,  and  endeavored  to  work  out  her  pro- 
per mission.  The  Lord  has  prospered  her  labors,  and  rewarded  her 
zeal.  Shall  she  now  be  allured  by  a  new  Grospel.  which  is  not,  even,  a 
Gospel,  proclaimed  by  one  who  sneers  at  devout  usages  taught  us  by  our 
fathers,  and  brands  as  heresy,  doctrines  which  those  fathers  derived  from 
the  Woi'd  of  Grod,  and  so  faithfully  handed  down  to  us,  to  abandon  our 
sacred  inheritance,  and  embrace  his  innovations?  Never,  no  never!  It 
cannot  be  that  the  Church  of  our  fathers  has  been  preserved  to  this  day, 
to  be  now  subverted  by  the  Christocentric  cultus  or  theo'ogy  of  the  author 
of  the  "  Vindication." 
10 


SUPPLEMENTARY  ARTICLES. 


In  accordance  with  what  seems  a  just  and  reasonable  request,  the  following- 
three  papers  are  appended  to  this  tract. 

The  first  is  a  reply  of  the  Rev.  G.  W.  Welker,  of  North  Carolina,  to  a  most 
uncalled-for  aspersion  of  the  delegates  of  his  Classis  by  Dr.  Nevin.  It  needs  no 
words  of  mine  to  commend  it  to  careful  consideration.  The  editor  of  the  Messen- 
ger refused  to  admit  it  into  the  columns  of  that  general  church  paper.  It  seems  his 
rules  forbid  the  admission  of  personalities — that  is,  when  they  bear  against  the 
leading  advocates  of  the  innovations.  This,  therefore,  was  the  only  medium  of 
self-defence  for  the  Brethren  whom  the  author  of  the  "Vindication"  had  so  un- 
kindly stigmatized. 

The  second  is  a  letter  from  a  member  of  our  Church  now  completing  his 
studies  in  Berlin.  It  is  especially  interesting  for  the  opinion  it  reports,  by  au- 
thority, of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dorner,  the  eminent  theologian  of  the  Berlin  University.  Dr. 
Dorner  has  sometimes  been  claimed  as  an  endorser  of  Dr.  Nevin's  views.  This 
letter  will  correct  that  mistake.  It  will  be  noticed  that  whilst  he  is  favorable  to 
the  German  Reformed  idea  of  a  Liturgy,  he  does  not  endorse  "  responses,"  and 
insists  upon  maintaining  free  prayer.  The  brother  who  received  this  letter  requested 
the  editor  of  the  3Iessenger  to  insert  it,  but  for  prudential  reasons  he  declined  to 
do  so.     It  too  strongly  confirms  the  reasons  urged  against  the  innovations. 

The  third  is  a  letter  from  another  member  of  our  Church,  also  completing 
his  theological  studies  in  the  Berlin  University.  It  speaks  so  clearly  and  ear- 
nestly for  itself  that  it  needs  no  comment. 

Both  these  letters  are  from  gentlemen  who  enjoyed  the  vei-y  best  opportunities 
for  becoming  fully  acquainted  with  the  subtleties  of  modern  Mercersburg  theo- 
logy.    We  only  ask  for  these  documents  a  calm  and  candid  perusal. 

I. 

[For  the  German  Reformed  Messenger,] 
Dr.  Nevin  vs.  the  Classis  of  North  Carolina  and  her  Delegates. 
A  valued  friend  has  just  sent  me  a  copy  of  Dr.  Nevin's  "Vindication."  The 
attack  on  the  Classis  of  North  Carolina  and  her  Delegates  to  the  late  Synods  in- 
vited my  attention.  It  should  not  have  been  a  surprise,  and  yet  it  was  altogether 
ijnexpected.  I  do  not  propose  to  write  a  vindication  of  this  unfortunate  Classis^ 
'^Historical,  Theological,"  or  otherwise,  for  it  is  only  quackei-y  that  usually  needs 
either  puffing  or  Vindication.  It  is  not  so  certain  but  that  the  results  of  the  Litur- 
gical movement  and  the  Mercersburg  theology  to  the  Church  will  be  her  most 
effectual  vindication.     Indeed,  it  seems  that  a  part  of  the  Church  already  feels 


148  SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES. 

that  lier  protest  against  these  novelties  was  timely  and  just.  Besides  this,  it  is 
possible  that  the  Classis  will  speak  for  herself  at  her  next  meeting.  Neither  is  it 
proposed  to  review  Mc  "Vindication,"  for  that  would  be  presumption  entirely 
insufferable  in  a  cipher.  The  attack  is  found  on  page  47,  in  these  words,  viz: — 
."  Two  of  these  colleagues  (of  Dr.  Bomberger)  besides  were  the  delegates  from  the 
Classis  of  North  Carolina,  which  has  been  in  a  state  of  ecclesiastical  secession 
from  the  Synod  ever  since  the  present  Liturgical  movement  commenced,  and 
whose  representatives  therefore  allowed  themselves,  with  very  bad  grace  cer- 
tainly, to  be  brought  North  at  this  time  for  the  purpose  of  meddling  with  it  in  any 
such  factious  way.  Aside  from  these  ciphers  the  clerical  vote  on  that  side  stood 
next  to  nothing."  In  this  three  points  are  made:  1.  That  the  Classis  of  North 
Carolina,  owing  to  her  previous  bad  conduct,  had  no  business  to  be  in  the  Synod 
at  this  time.  2.  That  her  delegates  showed  themselves  factious  by  their  conduct 
in  Synod,  and  meddled  in  matters  when  good  manners  forbid.  3.  That  they 
were  brought  North  by  others  to  be  used  as  tools  in  the  warfare  on  his  bantling 
of  a  Liturgy. 

I  shall  not  copy  the  example  of  Dr.  Nevin,  nor  quote  his  own  epithets  as 
applicable  to  the  character  of  these  charges.  I  trust  to  be  preserved  from  his 
spirit,  while  it  is  shown  how  great  wrong  he  has  done  this  Classis,  her  delegates, 
and  the  whole  German  Preformed  Church.  However  wrong  the  action  of  the 
Classis  in  respect  of  the  Liturgy  and  the  Mercersburg  theology  (and  no  infalli- 
bility has  ever  been  claimed)  may  have  been,  and  whatever  rights  that  conduct 
may  have  forfeited,  her  appearance  in  the  Synod  was  not  of  her  seeking.  She 
was  there  on  the  reiterated  invitation  of  Synod,  from  whose  roll  her  name  had 
never  been  erased,  and  that  year  after  year  elected  of  her  ministers  as  members 
of  the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions.  Almost  every  Synod  made  efforts  to  secure 
the  return  of  her  delegates.  The  Synod  of  1857  appointed  commissioners,  of 
whom  one  visited  the  Classes,  to  seek  a  reunion  of  the  severed  Classes.  The  Synod 
of  1858  passed  the  following  resolve,  without  a  dissentient  voice,  viz:  "  Resolved, 
That  this  Synod  is  gratified  at  the  presence  of  the  Commissioners  from  the  Classis 
of  North  Carolina,  and  cordially  invites  the  Classis,  through  them,  to  resume  its 
former  relation  to  Synod."  When  the  great  rebellion  was  over  the  Synod  of  1865, 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Classis,  expressive  of  its  affection  and  wishes,  by  the 
President  of  Synod,  says:  "While  therefore  we  sincerely  regret  that  adverse  cir- 
cumstances have  prevented  you  from  sending  delegates  to  meet  with  the  brethren 
in  Synod  assembled  regulaidy  during  the  last  four  years,  we  now  express  the  hope 
that,  with  God's  blessing,  you  may,  etc., — and  hereafter  send  delegates  to  mingle 
with  us  in  our  Synods."  On  such  invitations,  so  full  and  without  reserve,  thus 
repeatedly  and  pressingly  made,  it  was,  that  Classis,  with  great  and  anxious  de- 
liberation, determined  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  Synods  of  1866,  and  thus 
"  resume  her /ormc?- relations  to  Synod."  There  never  had  been  any  conditions 
even  hinted  at.  Not  any  guarantee  was  demanded.  It  was  an  unconditional 
reconstruction.  We  resumed  our  former  relations  to  Synod.  We  were  jjlaced  on 
a  perfect  equality  with  every  other  Classis,  as  it  respects  rights  and  privileges  in 
the  Synods.  Her  delegates  had  the  right  to  participate  in  the  discussion  of  all 
matters,  and  to  vote  on  every  question.  To  this,  no  doubt,  the  Church  North  wel- 
comed her.  Or  was  all  this  persistent  demand  for  re-union  only  a  sham?  Were 
all  those  greetings  at  York  and  Dayton  only  a  mockery  ?  Was  it  not  a  cordial 
welcome  of  the  Classis  to  her  former  relation?     Dr.  Nevin  implies  that  she  was 


SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES.  149 

expected  very  penitently  and  gracefully  to  sit  by  and  wonder  and  admire,  but  be 
silent.  Doubtless  the  Synods  of  Frederick  and  Lewisburg  gave  lionest  expression 
to  the  desire  of  the  Church.  And  the  letters  of  the  sainted  Father  Helfenstein 
and  of  Drs.  Porter,  Zacharias  and  Fisher,  intended  no  reserve  in  their  hearty 
invitation  to  return.  At  York  and  Dayton,  excepting  Dr.  Nevin  and  a  very  few 
spirits  as  intolerant  as  himself,  never  was  so  kind  and  loving  welcome  given  per- 
sonally to  the  delegates  of  a  Classis  as  those  of  North  Carolina  Classis  received, 
as  well  by  those  who  admire  the  new  Liturgy  and  hold  the  Mercersburg  theology 
as  by  others.  It  is  not  credible  that  Dr.  Nevin  speaks  the  mind  of  the  Church, 
and  he  has  no  doubt  grievously  wronged  her  spirit,  and  cast  an  unjust  imputation 
on  her  candor  and  honesty. 

What  was  the  conduct  of  the  delegates  of  the  Classis  of  North  Carolina?     In 
what  were  they  factious?     In  what  were  they  guilty  of  meddlesome  impertinence? 
Were  they  guilty  of  any  act  at  York  or  Dayton  not  warranted  by  their  age  or  service 
in  the  Church,  or  as  the  representatives  of  a  Classis  that  was  in  the  full  enjoyment  of 
all  her  rights,  in.  virtue  of  having  resumed  former  relations  ?     The  appeal  may  be 
safely  made  to  all  the  members  of  those  Synods  in  proof.      Did  they  officiously  ob- 
trude themselves  or  their  views — if  ciphers  are  permitted  to  have  views  in  a  German 
Reformed  Synod  ?     No  !  their  crime  was  voting  with  "Dr.  Bomberger  and  his  com- 
pany."   Doubtless  this  was  done,  but  quietly  and  honestly  as  they  hold  the  truth. 
Synod  was  fully  aware  of  the  views  of  Classis  when  urged  to  resume  her /ormer  re- 
lations. But  they  are  the  "  ciphers"  in  this  "miserable  faction."    But  even  ciphers 
may  fill  uplace — for  them,  too,  there  is  an  office,  and  if  they  fill  it  well  they  have 
done  all  that  good  ciphers  can  do,  be  it  at  the  right  or  left  of  the  significant  figures. 
It  is  claimed  for  them  that  they  fairly  represented  the  views  of  their  Classis  as 
well  as  their  own.     It  was  their  right  and  their  duty  to  vote  as  they  did,  for  the 
rules  of  Synod  required  them  to  vote.     This  is  their   offence — no  more!     They 
made  no  speeches — ciphers  should  not ;    they  abused  no  one  for  difi'ering  from 
t'hemselves.     They,  I  suppose,  treated  all  men  courteously;  made  no  effort  to  per- 
vert justice  or  the  truth.     But  then,  they  were  wanting  in  not  instinctively  dis- 
covering the  transcendent  merits  of  the  new  Order  of  Worship.     They  did  not 
gracefully  choose  an  orbit  about  the  ceaitral  sun  of  Mercersburg  theology.     What 
crimes!     How  well  merited  the  assault  on  them.     It  is  true  such  dolts  are  not 
able  to  grasp  the  profound  questions  involved  in  this  controversy — they  had  not 
sat  at  the  feet  of  Drs.  Angelic  and  Seraphic,  and  been  taught  the  beauties  of  the 
new  Liturgy,  or  the  depths  of  the  theology  of  Mercersburg.     Would  not  this  have 
been  reason  for  sparing  the  harmless  creatures  such  a  castigation?     They  unto 
whom  little  is  given,  of  them  the  just  one  requires  but  little.     They  do  humbly 
own  that  they  are  not  able  to  harmonize  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Liturgy  with  the 
teachings  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  or  to  discover  the  superiority  of  its  order 
of  worship  over  that  received  of  the  fathers. 

This  is  not  all  the  crime  of  the  silly  representatives  of  this  Classis.  They  al- 
lowed themselves  to  be  made  the  tools  of  that  "miserable  faction  "  who  oppose 
what  they  consider  the  insidious  errors  of  Dr.  Nevin,  and  which  pervade  the  new 
Liturgy.  When  the  delegates  were  chosen,  there  was  no  thought  had  of  this  con- 
troversy. They  purposed  to  go  to  Synod,  because  Classis  had  resolved  by  them  to 
resume  her  former  relations.  There  never  was  any  hesitation  about  their  going, 
unless  it  were  from  the  inability  of  Classis  to  meet  the  expense  growing  out  of 
their  attendance.     It  is  true,  they  were  written  to,  but  never  a  word  was  written 


150  SUPPLEMENTARY    ARTICLES, 

to  the  writer  of  this  about  the  Liturgy  question  in  this  connection.  The  invita- 
tions were  alike  for  its  friends  and  those  who  oppose  its  adoption.  Ciphers  as 
they  are,  it  is  not  characteristic  of  them  to  be  the  tools  of  others,  or  that  bribery 
or  aught  else  could  affect  their  conduct.  If  this  imputation  be  true,  they  are  ut- 
terly unfit  for  the  ministry  that  they  would  thus  have  disgraced;  and  Synod 
should  exclude  so  corrupt  a  Classis.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  however,  that  it  is  the 
lonely  preeminence  of  Dr.  Nevin  to  attempt  to  revive  prejudice  against  the  Classis 
by  the  allusion  to  the  past — and  to  insinuate  corruption  and  bribery. 

These  are  the  facts.  They  place  Dr.  Nevin  before  the  Church  as  a  false 
ACCUSER  of  the  brethren.  Why  should  the  attack  be  made  ?  It  was  not  needful 
to  the  argument.  Neither  the  Classis  nor  its  delegates  had  in  any  way  assailed 
him,  or  been  wanting  in  respect  toward  him.  Can  it  be  that  his  ambition  is  so  in- 
satiable that  this  Mordecai  at  the  King's  gate  so  stirs  the  heart  within  him  that  it 
destroys  his  peace?  Can  it  be  that  this  "Secession"  Classis,  with  its  ciphers,  re- 
fusing to  bow  to  his  dictations,  so  vexed  his  soul,  that  it  thus  boiled  over  with  re- 
dundant bitterness?  or  had  the  events  of  the  two  Synods^-the  well-directed 
thrusts  from  the  "miserable  faction" — so  surcharged  his  soul  with  rancour,  that 
the  preceding  forty-six  pages  of  the  "Vindication"  had  failed  to  afford  him  space  on 
which  to  discharge  it,  and  that  the  dregs  were  poured  out  on  the  hapless  Classis 
of  North  Carolina?  She  can  bear  it.  Her  members  have  had  very  significant 
training  from  the  same  manner  of  spirits  during  the  war,  and  their  past  experience 
enables  them  to  bear  the  cruel  contempt  of  Dr.  Nevin.  But  it  is  not  the  Spirit  of 
the  Master,  and  it  may  yet  appear  that  these  despised  men  are  owned  of  Him  who 
says, — "Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these,  the  least  of  my  disciples,  ye  did  it 
unto  me." 

There  is  yet  one  other  fact  in  this  connection  that  demands  notice.  On  page 
three  of  this  "Vindication"  is  the  request  of  twenty-one  Elders  for  its  preparation. 
These,  doubtless,  are  worthy  men — Christian  gentlemen.  Personally  we  have 
knowledge  of  but  two  or  three  of  them.  Does  Dr.  Nevin  also  wrong  them  in  this 
unprovoked  attack  upon  their  brethren,  or  was  it  for  such  purpose  they  invoked 
his  pen?  We  hope — we  believe  not,  and  yet  it  is  under  the  cover  of,  and  in  com- 
pliance with,  their  request,  that  these  gratuitous  wrongs  are  done  to  the  Classis 
of  North  Carolina  and  her  representatives.  Why  should  these  brethren  involve  a 
pen  so  potent  for  abuse  upon  us?  Surely  their  partizan  spirit  did  not  so  preju- 
dice them.  We  do  admit  the  idea.  Their  confidence  has  been  abused,  and  they 
are  needlessly  and  recklessly  made  responsible  for  what  their  souls  abhor.  It  is 
not  to  be  credited  that  these  Elders,  representing  twelve  or  thirteen  Classes, 
would  consent  to  wound  a  sister  Classis,  now  crushed  to  the  ground  with  great 
sorrow  and  suffering,  or  that  they  are  a  party  to  these  great  wrongs  until  they 
avow  it. 

It  cannot  be  forgotten  that  the  author  of  this  "Vindication"  is  the  controlling 
mind  and  pervading  spirit  of  the  Liturgy  it  seeks  to  vindicate.  As  we  read  its  pages 
we  were  struck  with  the  stream  of  undiluted  gall  that  coursed  through  them.  His 
opponents  only  deal  in  ^'icholesale  slander  of  the  vilest  sort" — '^wholesale  misrep- 
resentation"— "jyAo/fsaic  falsification,"  etc.  Their  productions  are  "sheer  non- 
sense," "botched  stuif,"  "blind  unreserving  prejudice,"  etc.  They  are  "a  mis- 
erable faction,"  "ciphers,"  etc.  There  is  no  desire  to  detract  one  iota  from  his 
reputation,  nor  would  we,  if  we  could,  abate  the  admiration  of  his  friends  ; 
but  we  must  be  allowed  in  all  frankness  to  say  that  the  abuse  of  these  pages  is 


SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES.  151 

more  effective  than  their  logic,  and  that  his  opponents  are  more  likely  to  be 
driven  from  the  field  by  bitter  denunciation,  and  by  the  aspersion  with  wicked 
motives  than  by  invincible  argument.  It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  one  occupying 
his  position  cannot  but  use  a  style  that  is  more  violent  than  chaste,  and  ofien 
borders  on  the  vulgar  and  ferocious.  Whoever  may  dare  to  dissent  from  his 
views,  cannot  be  better  than  a  fool,  a  slanderer,  a  rationalist,  or  a  puritan.  Put 
forth  what  plea  you  may,  all  we  would  reply  is,  that  out  of  the  abundance  of  the 
heart  the  mouth  speaketh.  Our  great  pattern  was  gentle.  The  greatness  of  Dr. 
N.  and  that  of  Christ  do  not  appear  under  the  same  form.  He  may  be  great  on 
the  '■'■Christocentric"  but  perhaps  it  were  well  to  bestow  a  little  elFort  on  the  Christ- 
like. But  this  is  the  Spirit  that  moulded  and  animated  the  Liturgy !  If  such  a 
spirit  lurks  beneath  their  forms — if  it  breathed  its  life  into  them,  then  may  all 
unite  to  pray  fervently— from  such  a  spirit  good  Lord  deliver  the  Church.  It  must 
go  far  to  destroy  respect  for  the  Book,  to  read  such  a  "Vindication."  As  a  work 
of  art  it  may  be  surpassing, — the  claims  of  a  Church-like  spirit  cannot  be  so  well 
made  out.  When  we  take  up  the  book,  our  devotional  frame  is  gone  the  moment 
the  remembrance  of  the  flow  of  Synod  and  the  turbid  stream  of  vindictive  abuse 
that  rushes  through  this  "Vindication  "  forces  itself  unbidden  on  our  thoughts.  We 
ask  ourselves,  can  a  fountain  thus  send  forth  at  the  same  time  both  bitter  and 
sweet  waters?  Indeed  the  author  has  not  yet  entered  into  the  spirit  of  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church.  In  his  emigration  from  his  ancestral  church  he  brouglit 
with  him  that  one  great  blemish  of  the  Covenanter — intolerance.  Perhaps  it  had 
been  better  for  the  church  of  his  choice  if  he  had  brought  with  him  rather  that 
simple,  grand  and  Scriptural  Creed  he  now  reviles,  and  left  behind  him  this  ex- 
crescence on  a  noble  faith.  To  those  North  and  South,  East  and  West,  who,  with 
the  Classis  of  North  Carolina,  are  rudely  and  rancourously  assailed  in  this  "Vindi- 
cation," I  would  say:  "With  malice  toward  none,  with  charity  for  all,  with  firm- 
ness in  the  right  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us  strive  on  to  finish  the 
work  we  are  in."  So  to  act  toward  those  that  revile,  ridicule  and  acrimoniously 
assail  us,  that  let  the  result  be  what  it  may,  we  shall  have  no  regrets — that  our 
enemies  can  point  to  no  line  or  word  that  dying  we  should  wish  to  blot.  Life  is 
too  short,  our  work  too  grand,  the  day  of  the  Lord  too  near,  to  allow  us  to  waste, 
in  attempts  at  vindictive  triumph,  the  few  sands  that  remain  Let  us  not 
forget  that  not  only  for  idle  words  and  wicked  deeds,  but  for  bitter  and  wrongful 
words  we  shall  be  brought  into  judgment,  and  also  that  he  who  says  to  his  bro- 
ther thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger,  etc.  Cipher. 

IL 

Berlin,  March  20th,  1867. 

Dear  Brother, 

Am  much  obliged  to  you  for  sending  me  a  copy  of 
the  Revised  Liturgy,  together  with  Dr.  Nevin  and  Dr.  Bomberger's  Pamphlets, 
and  those  numbers  of  the  3Iessenger  which  contain  the  discussions  at  the  General 
Synod.  You  know  I  have  always  been  in  favor  of  a  Liturgy,  and  I  have  looked 
forward  with  the  deepest  interest  to  the  final  decision  of  our  Church  on  the 
Liturgical  question.  It  was  not  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that  we  should  remain 
indifferent  with  regard  to  this  late  liturgical  movement.  The  new  Liturgy, 
strongly  recommended  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  no  less  earnestness  rejected  on 
the  other,  challenged  all  for  approval  or  disapproval.     We,  too,  felt  it  our  duty  to 


152  SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES. 

decide,  whether  we  ought  to  be  for  it  or  against  it ;  to  pretend  to  hold  a  neutral 
ground,  or  to  have  no  opinion  on  a  question  of  such  vital  importance  to  the 
church,  is  impossible  for  any  Christian  be  he  ever  so  humble.  There  was,  how- 
ever, but  little  hope  for  me  to  come  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter. The  subject  is  sufficiently  deep  and  broad  for  the  best  theologians  of  the 
present  day.  Yet  I  could  not  rest  satisfied  with  the  mere  consciousness  of  this 
fact.  Serious  charges  had  been  made  against  the  Revised  Litui-gy  ;  against  some 
of  its  doctrine,  and,  at  the  same  time,  against  some  of  the  most  prominent  men 
of  our  church.  Whether  these  charges  had  any  foundation  in  the  Liturgy  itself, 
or  in  what  had  been  said  in  defence  of  it,  I  thought  I  could  best  learn  by  giving 
the  Liturgy,  with  all  the  writings  relative  to  it,  together  with  a  copy  of  "  Mercers- 
burg  Theology"  into  the  hands  of  Professor  Dorner,  a  man  who  is  known  to  be 
neither  onesided  Lutheran  or  Reformed,  but  strictly  Evangelic,  and  who,  in  our 
own  church,  is  regarded  as  the  greatest  theologian  of  Germany  at  the  present 
day.  Abovxt  three  or  four  weeks  ago  I  handed  him  the  different  articles,  and 
yesterday  I  went  to  him,  to  see  if  he  had  formed  any  opinion  on  the  subject,  and 
whether  he  would  communicate  his  views  to  me.  I  will  here  report  to  you  the 
few  plain  statements  he  made,  as  nearly  in  his  own  words  as  I  can  :  "  I  look  upon 
Dr.  Nevin  as  a  pious  and  able  man  ;  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  set 
</  forth  in  his  '  Mystical  Presence,'  is  the  pure  Calvinistic  doctrine ;  he  is  right  in 
his  zeal  for  a  Liturgy,  over  against  free  worship,  fcTr  though  I  believe  the  so-called 
revivals  have  done  much  good,  and  are  not  to  be  condemned ;  yet  they  are  liable 
to  degeneration  [ausarten),  and  there  must  be  order  in  the  congregation.  It  is 
true  also  that  in  the  use  of  a  Liturgy  the  congregation  is  more  free  in  its  worship 
than  when  it  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  free  prayer  of  the  minister.  The  peo- 
ple can  better  pray  with  the  minister  when  they  know  beforehand  what  is  coming. 
Not  all  ministers  can  pray  well.  But  after  &\\,  free  prayer  must  have  a  place.  More- 
over, Dr.  Nevin  was  right,  when,  for  the  preparation  of  a  Liturgy,  he  went  back 
to  the  Church  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  and  gtudied  their  Liturgies. 
Some  of  the  old  Greek  liturgies  of  those  times,  although  not  pure  in  doctrine, 
contain  most  beautiful  prayers,  for  instance  those  of  Chrysostomos,  and  there 
ought  to  be  room  to  depart  in  some  points  at  least  from  the  old  Palatinate  Litur- 
gies. But  it  was  not  right  for  Dr.  Nevin  to  go  back  to  the  ancient  Church,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  set  aside  the  Church  of  the  Reformation.  There  is  a  Romaniz- 
ing tendency  underlying  his  thinking ;  he  seems  to  see  truth  only  in  the  old 
Church ;  the  material  principle  of  Protestantism,  Justification  by  Faith,  is  to  a 
great  extent  set  aside  [iriU  sehr  in  den  Hintergrund.)  He  has  not,  however,  under- 
stood the  ancient  Church.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  she  had  Dr.  Nevin's  view  of 
the  ministry.  This  view  of  the  ministry  belongs  to  the  Anglican  Church.  The 
Liturgy  makes  ordination  a  sacrament,  which  is  not  in  harmony  with  Protestant 
doctrine.  "Mercersburg  Theology"  is  not  clear;  it  is  hard  to  see  what  its  exact 
views  are  ;  it  is,  however,  not  what  it  claims  to  be,  namely,  German  Evangelical 
Theology.  German  Theology  is  not  its  basis.  I  do  not  know  to  what  German 
Theologian  Dr.  Nevin  would  appeal  for  his  views.  He  speaks  of  Ullinann ;  but 
his  views  are  not  those  of  Ullmann  ;  he  has  not  understood  Ullmann.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Person  of  Christ,  as  laid  down  in  "  Mercersburg  Theology,"  is  not 
in  harmony  with  my  views ;  indeed  I  have  been  charged  with  holding  such  a 
view ;  but  I  have  refuted  the  charge  in  the  second  edition  of  my  work  on  the  Per- 


SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES.  153 

son  of  Christ.     Dr.  Nevin  will  hardly  .appeal  to  me  in  support  of  his  views  after 
he  has  read  my  late  work!  '•  Geschichte  der  Protestantishen  Theology,  1867." 

This,  then,  is  the  opinion  of  Professor  Corner  on  the  "  Liturgy,"  on  "  Mercers- 
burg  Theology,"  and  on  Dr.  Nevin's  thinldng  in  general.  It  may  .surprise  you, 
as  it  did  me,  yet  would  it  not  be  well  to  make  these  things  known  to  the  Church 
at  large.  I  think  it  would  give  a  fresh  impulse  to  all  for  a  more  thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  whole  subject,  than  has  hitherto  been  made.  It  is  very  probable, 
too,  that  before  long,  you  will  see  something  from  Professor  Dorner  himself  on 
this  question. 

III. 

Berlin,  March  28,  1867. 
Dear  Friend  : — *  *  *  *  *  *  «-  -x-  ********  *  i^ 
more  weighty  reason  for  my  writing  just  now,  may  be  found  in  our  mutual  rela- 
tion to  the  Church  in  the  great  conflict  which  is  now  going  on  in  her  bosom;  for 
as  it  was  a  source  of  great  comfort  and  encouragement  to  us  to  hear  on  which  side 
you  stand,  so  it  m<ay  possibly  be  to  some  degree  strengthening  to  you  to  know  that, 
though  far  removed  from  the  scene  of  conflict,  we  are,  with  heart  and  soul,  with 
you  and  with  all  those  who  like  you  are  standing  up  against  the  tide  of  innovation 
which  is  rolling  in  upon  the  Church  and  threatening  to  sweep  away  everything 
before  it.  At  such  a  time  it  is  important  that  the  friends  of  the  truth  should  know 
each  other's  views,  and  take  counsel  together  for  their  own  mutual  strengthening 
and  consolation.  I  say  this  not  from  any  sense  of  my  own  importance  in  the 
matter,  for,  unhappily,  I  feel  myself  as  yet  insufficient  for  the  work  and  responsi- 
bility involved  in  coming  forth  in  public  defence  of  the  most  vital  doctrines  of  the 
Church  against  error  in  high  places;  yet,  because  I  am  aware  that  some  are 
accustomed  to  think  and  speak  of  us  who  are  here,  as  belonging  exclusively  to  their 
party  (the  Mercersburg  school),  I  think  it  important  to  make  it  known  as  far  as 
possible  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  and  especially  my  friends,  that  such  is  not  the 
case.'  For  however  little  our  opinion  may  be  worth,  however  slight  an  influence 
it  may  exert,  be  it  but  the  small  dust  of  the  balance,  it  is  nevertheless  a  matter  of 
conscience  with  us  to  have  that  little  cast  into  the  right  side  of  the  scale.  Hence, 
although  we  lay  no  claim  to  learnedness  much  less  authority,  yet  for  this  reason  if 
for  no  other,  we  may,  in  this  momentous  crisis,  venture  to  express  our  opinion 
to  our  friends,  viz.,  that  we  may  be  comforted  together  in  and  for  the  defence  of 
that  Gospel  which  has  made  us  free.  We  would  give  our  mite  towards  strengthen- 
ing you  who  on  the  broad  principle  of  evangelical  truth,  in  the  spirit  of  Christian 
love,  and  free  from  dogmatic  quibblings,  are  giving  your  labor  and  your 
substance  for  the  building  up  of  the  blessed  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  whom  we 
consider  to  be  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  Church,  in  a  truer  sense  than  those  theolo- 
gians are,  who,  in  love  with  their  own  notions,  theories  and  speculations,  are 
consciously  or  unconsciously  to  themselves,  distracting  the  Church  and  leading  it 
from  the  right  way,  the  plain  path  of  Scripture. 

I  have  been  compelled,  against  my  will  and  prejudices,  to  change  to  a  great  ex- 
tent my  views  in  regard  to  Mercersburg  Theology,  and  consequently  tlie  new  Liturgy 
too, — I  say  compelled,  because  it  was  not  without  a  struggle  that  I  could  be  brought 
to  give  up  that  which  ivom  natural  preference  and  education,  I  had  so  long 
ardently  admired  and  firmly  held  for  truth,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  adopt  views 
which  .are  in  principle  and  of  necessity  diS'erent  from  and  in  ^omz  points  in  direct 


154  SUPPLEMENTARY    ARTICLES. 

opposition  to  those  I  formerly  entertained.  This,  according  to  the  Rev.  T.  G. 
Appel's  late  exposition  (in  the  German  Reformed  Messenger),  would  have  to  be  pro- 
nounced heresy  and  schism.  But  it  occurs  to  me  that  the  symbols  of  the  German 
Reformed  Church  are  the  law  according  to  which  it  must  be  judged  and  decided 
whether  a  member  of  the  Church  is  guilty  of  heresy  or  not,  not  the  theology  of  the 
Mercershurg  school.  The  conception  "  Mercersburg  Theology"  is  too  narrow  to 
answer  to  the  idea  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  and  it  implies  no  small  degree 
of  presumption  for  it  to  make  such  claims.  It  is  scarcely  known  here,  except 
among  theologians,  that  such  a  theology  exists.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  as  if  it 
had  no  right  to  arraign  members  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  on  the  charge 
of  heresy,  because,  forsooth,  they  may  not  believe  in  Mercersburg  Theology,  or 
may  even  go  so  far  as  to  speak  against  it.  But  however  this  may  be,  in  our  ear- 
nest endeavors  to  find  the  truth,  we  have  felt  ourselves  constrained  to  change  our 
position  with  reference  to  some  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Mercersburg 
school  theology.  Should  this  turn  out  to  be  heresy,  we  are  ready  to  abide  the 
consequences  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  we  are  in  error.  Of  course  it  is  not 
possible  within  the  narrow  limits  of  a  letter  to  give  you  a  full  and  satisfactory  ac- 
count of  our  views  and  thinking,  on  such  wide  and  important  subjects;  yet  I  must 
endeavor  briefly  to  say  something.  I  have  been  brought  to  see  things  as  I  now 
do,  by  means  of  the  clearer,  stronger  light  which,  from  the  minds  of  the  learned 
and  pious  men  of  this  Protestant  land,  beams  in  upon  the  field  of  theology,  and 
enables  one  to  perceive  more  fully  the  extent  of  the  science  as  a  whole,  as  well  as 
more  correctly  to  estimate  the  character  of  its  particular  branches,  schools,  etc. 
Having,  as  we  hope  through  the  lectures  of  such  distinguished  theologians  as  Dr. 
Doi-ner  and  others,  gotten  a  somewhat  wider  and  clearer  view  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject, in  particular  of  the  relation  and  difference  between  Roman  Catholicism  and 
Protestantism,  we  think  we  are  better  able  to  understand  and  appreciate  our 
Mercersburg  Theology,  than  we  could  ever  have  been  had  we  remained  entirely 
within  its  sphere.  The  thinking  of  men  in  the  sphere  of  Christianity,  whether 
clear  or  dark,  is  not  to  be  received  as  absolutely  true  at  once,  but  must  be  closely 
examined — must  be  tried  by  the  Symbols  of  the  Church,  and  above  all  by  the  in- 
fallible Word  of  God.  To  speak  in  the  most  general  way,  I  have  been  brought  to 
believe,  indeed  am  most  firmly  convinced,  that  our  Mercersburg  Theology  is 
seeking  something  which  does  not,  and  in  the  nature  of  the  case  cannot  exist,  viz., 
a  middle  position  between  Roman  Catholicism  and  Trotestantism.  This  I  believe 
to  be  its  aim,  its  most  general  and  distinguishing  characteristics,  consequently, 
although  it  claims  to  be  something  "nezy,"  "aw  advance  upon  any  thing  that  has 
preceded  it,"  "the  latest  development,"  "the  only  live  theology,"  etc.,  etc.,  it  is  in 
reality  the  renewal  and  fuller  "development"  of  the  same  old  Romanizing  ten- 
dencies and  errors  which  have  before  appeared  at  diiferent  times  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  especially  in  Puseyism  and  Irvingism.  The  most  general  distinction 
between  Roman  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  is  this:  Catholicism  jjlaces  between 
the  individual  believers  and  Clirist,  a  consecrated  order  (consisting  of  Pope,  Bishops, 
Priests,  etc.),  essentially  different  from  all  other  Christians  in  that  they  possess  extraor- 
dinary gifts,  powers,  etc.  (,Y«p'ff/'ara),  and  upon  this  order  in  various  ivays  the  indivi- 
dual is  made  to  depend  for  salvation,  because  only  through  it  and  through  faith  in  its 
mediation  is  it  possible  for  him  to  come  to  Christ!  Protestantism  on  the  contrary  ad- 
mits of  no  such  priestly  intervention  in  any  sense.  According  to  its  principle  the 
individual  stands  in  an  immediate  personal  relation  to  Christ,  and  is  justified 
through  faith  in  Him. 


SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES.  155 

Just  here,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  fundamental  radical  error  of  Mercersburg  Theo- 
logj)  ^^  error  which,  if  persisted  in,  must,  of  logical  necessity,  carry  its  follow- 
ers over  to  Rome,  viz.:  it  wants  to  have  a  consecrated  order — the  Apostolic  succession 
and  the  Priesthood.  Men  may  persuade  themselves  that  there  is  no  harm  in  this, 
may  try  to  explain  it  away  or  deny  it,  but  it  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  the  idea  of 
such  a  consecrated  order  involves  a  third  sacrament,  is  an  interference  with  the  di- 
rect personal  relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ,  and  an  attack  upon  the  very  life 
pri7iciple  of  Protestantism.  The  idea  of  a  priesthood  involves  at  least  three  things : 
1.  Something  which  out  of  common  Christians,  makes  priests,  i.  e.,  an  anointing 
or  communication  of  peculiar  and  specific  supernatural  gifts  or  powers  [xaqiov- 
axpo.),  or,  in  other  words,  a  sacrament.  2.  A  sacrifice  to  be  offered  before  God,  or 
mediating  intercession  to  be  made  with  Him  by  the  priest  in  behalf  of  needy  men. 
3.  Persons  who  are  themselves  in  need  of  a  priest  to  intercede  for  them  with 
Christ.  It  is  easy  to  see  from  this,  not  only  that  the  Evangelical  Church  has  no 
need  of  any  mortal  priesthood,  but  that  it  is  in  conflict  with  what  she  holds  to  be  the 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  She  can  have  no  such  sacrament,  because  the 
Lord  has  instituted  no  such  sacrament.  She  needs  no  sacrifice  beyond  the  one 
great  sacrifice  offered  once  for  all.  She  teaches  that  all  true  believers  are 
priests,  which  of  itself,  does  away  with  a  special  order  of  priests.  We  have  one 
Great  High  Priest  who  has  passed  into  the  heavens,  and  who  has  made  us  all 
kings  and  priests  unto  God,  and  to  whom  we  offer  ourselves  as  living  sacrifices  of 
thanksgiving  in  love,  and  we  need  no  other  priest. 

Mercersburg  Theology  lays  much  stress  on  an  "objective  Church"  and  an 
"objective  Christianity."  Indeed,  it  goes  so  far  in  this  direction  as  to  make  but 
small  account  of  the  inward  experience  of  the  Christian,  the  Holy  Spirit  witnessing 
with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God,  which  is,  after  all,  the  most  di- 
rect and  convincing  evidence  we  have.  But  it  is  to  be  feared  that  its  objectivity, 
like  that  of  the  Roman  Church,  is,  notwithstanding,  subjective;  for  that  which 
owes  its  existence  to  the  thinking  and  invention  of  man,  and  has  not  its  ground  in 
the  Divine  Word,  is,  however  objective  it  may  claim  to  be,  in  the  end  purely  sub- 
jective. Such  an  objective  Christianity  we  have  in  the  Roman  Church:  let  us  not 
incline  too  much  that  way,  but  rather  seek  that  objective  Christianity  which  is  of 
the  Lord,  which  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  His  written  Word,  and  which,  more- 
over, becomes  at  the  same  time  subjective.  Could  we  all  find  this  I  am  inclined  to  be- 
lieve we  would  not  dispute  so  much  about  matters  of  minor  importance. 

Mercersburg  Theology  is  not  clear  on  many  points.  For  instance,  as  to  its 
idea  of  the  Church.  At  one  time  it  says  "the  Church  is  an  organization,"  etc. 
Very  vague:  so  is  a  tree.  Again:  "our  Church"  (meaning  the  German  Re- 
formed Church)  "is  the  Church  of  the  Creed."  Have  you  ever  found  out  what 
they  mean  by  this  expression  "Church  of  the  Creed?"  I  wish  they  would,  once 
for  all,  tell  plainly  what  it  may  signify.  On  this  point  they  are  all  the  time  soar- 
ing among  the  clouds ;  will  they  not,  for  once,  descend  to  the  regions  of  commoti 
comprehension?  I  can  see  that  we  are  a  Church  of  the  Creed  in  the  sense  that 
other  churches  are  who  profess  the  same  faith  in  the  use  of  the  same  Creed,  but 
as  to  what  further  is  meant  I  am  all  in  the  dark. 

These  objections  against  Mercersburg  Theology  apply  ivith  equal  force  to  the  new 
Liturgy,  because  the  principle  I  have  before  mentioned  underlies  it.  It  is  the  le- 
gitimate, though  I  believe  not  the  last  nor  the  worst  fruit  of  that  system  of  think- 
ing; and,  however  excellent  it  may  be  in  some  respects,  yet,  on  account  of  its  prin- 


156 


SUPPLEMENTARY   ARTICLES. 


rAple,  the  Church,  if  it  will  remain  Reformed  and  true  to  the  written  Word  and  to 
its  own  symbols,  must  reject  both  it  and  the  doctrines  which  underlie  it. 

It  is  true  this  error  has  become  wide-spread  in  the  Church.  Yea,  it  even 
claims  that  it  is  itself  the  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  but  this  need  not  surprise  you, 
knowing  that  the  schools  have,  for  so  long  a  time,  been  in  the  hands  of  the  de- 
fenders and  propagators  of  this  doctrine.  I  know  from  experience  how  a  student 
is  accustomed  to  feel  and  think  after  he  has  passed  through  a  College  and  Semi- 
nary where  the  cardinal  aim  of  all  religious  instruction  was,  to  make  the  subject 
sound  in  Mercersburg  Theology.  But  let  us  be  of  good  cheer.  Though  the  error  is 
so  wide-spread  that  it  seems  there  is  but  one  man  left  who  has  courage  to  raise 
his  voice  in  defence  of  the  truth,  yet  I  firmly  believe  the  day  is  near  at  hand  when 
the  Protestant  consciousness  of  our  people  will  be  aroused,  and  when  the  now  slum- 
bering Church  will  awake  and  hurl  from  her  troubled  bosom  this  foul  incubus. 

Yours  in  the  Lord. 

Marienslrasse  29,  Ztu  Stage  Rechts^ 


DATE  DUE 

E^i:ui>'i]::»u 

jMMiMM*' 

mmm^ 

r«».: 

E,;" 

€A'^^^'^f' 

^-ff*******^ 

^^^ Hi  igj 

k 

''""'**^"«««. 

f  ^  'Wi 

mm^' 

l\l^ 

wm^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S    A. 

jylora  oros. 

Makers 

Ivracuse,  N.Y.  i_ 

Pat.  No.  877188 


